9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be framed are as follows: "(a) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the addition of share capital of Rs. 46,72,000/- in the hands of the appellant under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and its purported findings that the transactions were not genuine or satisfactorily explained and upholding the said addition are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse? (b) Whether the Tribunal in upholding the said addition proceeded on surmise and conjecture, ignored the relevant materials and took into consideration irrelevant and/or extraneous materials rendering its findings arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?" The facts have been succinctly recorded in the order of the Appellate Tribunal impugned herein passed on January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thers had a common address of P 25, Princep Street. It is difficult to miss that these addresses are in and around 7A, Bentinck Street, which is the registered office of the appellant assessee, if not at the same address. The appellant emphasises that the GIR details of the 21 applicants were indicated to the department and it was for the department to find out whether such persons existed since all but two of the 21 applicants had individual income tax files. The appellant also relies on the replies issued by the two proprietorship concerns of the principal person in control of the appellant and his wife upon receipt of notices dated March 3, 2005 calling upon the proprietors to be present before the relevant authorities on March 7, 2005. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se under Section 68 of the Act. There are tell-tale signs in the documents that give an impression that the applicants for shares in the assessee company may have either been telephone directory applicants or entities in whose names files may have been prepared but who may not have been in existence. As a matter of fact, none of the applicants was found to be in existence at the addresses furnished in 2001. It is the submission on behalf of the appellant that all the 21 applicants suddenly found this city inappropriate for them to live in and shifted outside. On the basis of the facts as presented by the appellant in response to the doubt that naturally arose, there does not appear to be any perversity in the treatment of such facts by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
