9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, unable to explain these transactions. Moreover, the assessee is a company with large shareholding. In these circumstances, the findings of fact concurrently made by the Appellate Authorities therefore, do not call for interference. Appeal is therefore, dismissed. - Decided against revenue - ITA 151/2018 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2018 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. A. K. CHAWLA JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. Respondent Through: None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL) The Revenue s appeal seeks deletion of the sum of ₹ 1,78,51,005/- brought to tax added by the Assessing Officer. 2. The assessee had reported receipt of the said sum of ₹ 1,78,51,005/- as share premium and call i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecisions relied upon, we find that the Assessing Officer had made the addition in question on the basis that the assessee had failed to explain the mode of receipts of money received as share premium and calls in arrears. It has failed to furnish the address of all such persons, claimed to be share holders, despite sufficient time and several opportunities provided. He noted that these receipts are stated to be relating to issue of 'zero' interest debentures of ₹ 150/- each for cash at par fully convertible into 5 equity shares after 3 months brought by the company in June, 1994. The forfeiture clause of the issue provided for liability of interest on the amount unpaid on allotment till the date of actual payment and also of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese circumstances, we are of the view that the ld. CIT (Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition in question. In this regard the ld. CIT (Appeals) has followed several decisions cited before it including decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Divine Leasing Finance Ltd. (2007) 207 CTR 38 holding that in the case of public issue, the company concerned cannot be expected to know every detail pertaining to the identity as well as financial worth of each of its subscribers. The first appellate order on the issue being reasoned one is thus upheld. The Ground No. 3 is accordingly rejected. 3. This Court is of the opinion that while initially the addition based upon the Assessing Officer s assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
