9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eev Sabharwal, Senior Standing Counsel. Mr. Johnson Bara, Advocate MANMOHAN, J: 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated 15th May, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "Tribunal") in ITA No. 800/Del/2009 for the Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the addition of ' 49,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (in short "AO") under Section 68 of the Act, 1961. 3. However, upon a perusal of the file we find that the said addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be made in the hand of the appellant company even if the share applicants have been found persons of no means until and unless otherwise it is proved by the revenue. The revenue could not proved that the money received by the appellant in the form of the share application has come from its own sources. This ratio of decision is applicable both in the cases of Public Limited Company and Private Limited Company in view of the latest decisions, as discussed above. Therefore, I have no hesitation to direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- (Rs. 39,00,000/- as per rectification order) which has been made by him under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The consequential addition of Rs. 98,000/- will also stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the money of the assessee, the addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee as the Department will be free to proceed to reopen the individual assessment of shareholders as per aforementioned decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) vide which the impugned addition has been deleted. We decline to interfere and the appeal is dismissed." 5. Keeping in view the mandate of law in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 216 CTR 195 (SC) and the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the two authorities below, the share application money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
