2016 (9) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which rejected its appeal. During the relevant period, i.e. AY 2005-06, the Assessing Officer (AO) had brought to tax the sum of Rs. 1,44,85,000/-, contending that the genuineness of the share application money and the identity disclosed by the assessee was suspect. The assessee's appeal was accepted by CIT(A), who n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has discharged the initial onus of establishing the bonafides of the transaction and the AO was not justified in ignoring various evidence provided to him by the appellant. Nothing adverse has been brought on record by the AO to establish that the share capital money received by the appellant represented its own undisclosed income. In fact the appellant had filed the share purchase agreement with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... prove otherwise. Accordingly, the AO was not justified in treating Rs. 1,44,85,000/- the amount of share application money received by the applicant as its undisclosed income. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed;" We are of the opinion that the CIT(A)'s order - which stands confirmed by the ITAT is both sound and unexceptionable having regard to the principle applicable to Section 68 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X