2010 (10) TMI 64

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ined cash credit. Learned counsel for Revenue further submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the addition made on account of commission paid by the assessee to the entry operator @2%. 3. However, upon a perusal of the file we find that the said addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short "CIT(A)] and the Tribunal on the ground that the identity of the shareholders was not in doubt. In fact, the CIT(A) in its order has observed as under :- "(c) The appellant company has provided details of the IT Return filed, PAN, copy of balance sheet and details filed with Registrar of Companies to substantiate that the amount of share application money received from the said companies was genuine. The AG .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the form of PAN, ROC details, copy of IT return filed and copy of confirmation to establish the genuineness of the transaction. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx After going through various facts of the case and judicial pronouncement on this issue, cited supra, it is seen that the appellant's case is fully covered by the above judgments. 4. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal held as under:- "5. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned Senior DR. We have also carefully gone through the assessment order as well as order of CIT(Appeals). The Assessing Officer observed at page 5 of the assessment order that merely furnishing PAN, assessment particulars and confirmation by the share applicants is not enough. This observation of A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that since principal amount is deleted, the question of assess ability of commission paid thereon does not arise and addition of the same is rightly deleted by the learned CIT (Appeals)." 5. In our considered opinion, the approach adopted by the Commissioner and ITAT is in consonance with the decision of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 216 CTR 195 (SC). 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law, the share application money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee under Section 68 of Act, 1961. In so far as the amount of commission is concerned, since the principal addition has been deleted, we do not find any infirmity with the decisions of the two authorities below in deleting t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X