9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax Deptt. Respondent Through: None. O R D E R 1. The question sought to be urged in this case is whether the addition of Rs. 4.65 crores under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') made in the course of re-assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2008-09, was justifiably directed to be deleted. 2. The assessee's original return was processed un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the AO and by a detailed order, was of the opinion that since the identity of the investors had been established and prima facie their credibility too was revealed, burden of proving that the transactions were not genuine lay upon the Revenue. After noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) and other judgments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers of the lower appellate authorities disclosed that both the assessee and later the share applicants (upon receiving notice under Section 131 of the Act) had produced documentary proof. These included the assessments and income-tax returns filed by the share applicants as well as confirmation and acknowledgment documents. If the AO wished to pursue the matter, there were sufficient clues for him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
