9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T] . We are of the view that no substantial question of law arises in these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. - MADAN B. LOKUR AND DR. S. MURALIDHAR, JJ. Ms. Prem Lata Bansal for the Appellant. Ms. Kavita Jha for the Respondent. ORDER 1. In these appeals under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ), the revenue is aggrieved by the order dated 7-4-2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ( Tribunal ) in ITA Nos. 2549/Del./2002 and 2550/Del./2002 relevant for the assessment year 1997-98. 2. Both the assessee companies are engaged in the business of financing and trading in shares. For the assessment year in question, the assessees declared a loss but were assessed at a positi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comments. Despite reminders, no response was received from the Assessing Officer by the CIT(A) on the additional evidence. The CIT(A) then admitted the additional evidence. After examining the entire record, the CIT(A) deleted the addition on account of the unexplained share application money for the following reasons: (i )The applicants concerned were identified. (ii )The applicants confirmed the payment of monies to the appellant for purpose of shares. (iii)The transactions in question were by cheques. (iv)The affidavits of the subscribers were filed indicating their full address, details of deposits made with the appellant and the source wherefrom money was obtained to make the deposits. Copies of Bank a/cs were furnished. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court s decision in the case of the group company of the assessees, on the ground that the facts there were different. However, we find that the findings of the CIT(A) as extracted hereinabove are sufficient to show that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified. The reasoning and conclusions arrived at concurrently by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal suffer from no perversity and are consistent with the law as explained by this Court in CIT v. Divine Leasing Finance Ltd. [2007] 158 Taxman 440 (Delhi) which reads thus : In this analysis, a distillation of the precedents yields the following propositions of law in the context of section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee has to prima facie prove (1) the identity o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
