9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epositors in the aforesaid circumstances, discharged the initial onus. In a case where public company receives the deposit through public notice and not privately and various depositors make the deposits, it is possible that at relevant time, the assessing company is not in a position to take the confirmation from each and every depositor. The deposits of those eight persons are nominal in nature when compared to the total deposits received by the assessee. Moreover, the information given in the application forms submitted by these depositors would have served the purpose and it cannot be said that the assessee did not discharge the onus. - Decided in favor of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sitors, which were to the tune of Rs.18.00 lakhs, were added in the income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The details of these persons as given by the Assessing Officer are as follows:- S.No. Name of the Depositors Amount (in Rs.) 1. Ms.Urmila Agarwal 1,00,000/- 2. Mr.Kapil Bihari Saxena 1,00,000/- 3. Ms.Geeta Devi Chauhan 70,000/- 4. Ms.Nishi Goel 50,000/- 5. Ms.Prabha Goel 50,000/- 6. Ms.Kavita Saxena 50,000/- 7. Ms.Vibha Saxena 50,000/- 8. Mr.Sandeep Kumar 50,000/- 9. Mr.Baldev Kumar 2,00,000/- 10. Ms.Bela Khanna 1,20,000/- 11. Ms.Sneh Agarwal 2,50,000/- 12. Ms.Shipli Agarwal 1,00,000/- 13. Mr.Shobit Agarwal 1,00,000/- 14. Mr.Rajesh Kumar Sharma 60,000/- 15. Mr.Ramch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted framing the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.5.20 lakhs on account of unexplained deposits under Section 68 of the Act? 5. Both the appeals are heard at this stage itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The Assessing Officer took the view, as noticed above; stating that there was no confirmation given by depositors at serial number 1 to 18, and, therefore, neither the identity nor the credit-worthiness was proved in these cases. In respect of depositors at serial number 9 to 14, assessee had furnished the confirmations, however, the additions were made on the ground that these de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed to income tax and had not given PAN/GIR numbers etc. could not be the reason for making addition under Section 68 of the Act. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as noted above, has sustained the addition in respect of the depositors at serial number 1 to 8 and has sustained the order of the CIT (Appeals) so far as deletion is made in respect of other depositors at serial number 9 to 18. We are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal confirming the order of the CIT (Appeal) on the grounds made in the order are perfectly justified. In the additional documents filed by the assessee, the application form is also produced on which comments are made by the CIT (Appeals). The perusal of this application form would indicate that every po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he attached terms and conditions governing the deposits." 8. It is stated at the cost of repetition that assessee is a public limited company and the deposits were invited by public notice and not privately. It is also important to note that total deposits in this year, which was received, were to the tune of Rs.2.61 crores and the Assessing Officer has raised dispute only qua 18 persons and whose total deposits are Rs.18.00 lakhs. By giving the information, which was available with the assessee in the form received in the aforesaid application form filled by the depositors, we are of the view that assessee had, in the aforesaid circumstances, discharged the initial onus. 9. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
