9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ND RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), JJ. Petitioner Counsel:- Dhananjay Awasthi Respondent Counsel:- Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal Suyash Agrawal (Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J 1. Heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, the counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been filed, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 05.10.2009, passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 3423/Del/2009 by which the appeal filed by the Revenue has been dismissed and the order of Commissioner Income-tax (Appeals), Meerut, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... creditworthiness of the share applicants were not proved at all? 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: The appeal relates to the assessment year 2004-05. M/s Nav Bharat Duplex Ltd. (the assessee) filed Income Tax Return on 25.10.2004, in capacity of company, showing total loss of Rs. 48,41,804/-. The Return was processed. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 26.05.2005. Thereafter notice under Section 142 (1) vide order sheet entry dated 28.08.2006 along with detailed questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee filed his reply on 12.10.2006, and submitted information relating to 18 parties, who had inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 05.10.2009 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the order of the CIT(A). 5. Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, Senior Standing Counsel, submitted that the creditworthiness of the alleged share applicants and genuineness of the transactions were not proved by the assessee. Merely disclosing the identity of the share applicant companies was not sufficient. In such circumstances, the Assessing Officer had rightly made addition in the income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act. He further submitted that the CIT (A) has wrongly relied upon the obiter dicta of the judgment of Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Lovely Export, 172 Taxman 44 and ignored the judgment of this Court in Ram Lal Agrawal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
