9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by the Department for issuance of Notices upon share applicants. No such application was preferred before C.I.T. (Appeals) by this appellant. Hence, we see no reason at this stage to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for further verification of share applications. Similar type of cases are coming to this court often and most of the time sametype of error is committed by the Assessing Officers, either deliberately or due to induced ignorance . This is not the first time such type of matter has been taken up by this Court Commissioner, Income Tax to have orientation courses or induction courses conducted for the Assessing Officers to make them understand that whenever assessee receives any amount by cheque, there is a need for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the factsand circumstances of the case, it appears that this case is pertaining to Assessment Year 2005-06. Looking to the Assessment Order dated 27thDecember, 2007, it appears that an addition of ₹ 95,15,000/-has been made mainly for the reason that though this amount pertained to share applications, but, the identity of the applicants remained unverified and the assessee could not give reply in this regard. Order dated 27thDecember, 2007 is at Annexure 1 to the memo of this Tax Appeal. 3.Thereafter, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Assessment Order for the assessment year 2005-06, appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in which a detailed expla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towards the share applications was by way of cheque. All the details regarding applicants were furnished by the assessee and Department could have issued notices to such applicants. Hence, there was no need for the Assessing Officer to make addition of ₹ 95,15,000/-. 6. It appears that before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also such prayer could have been made by the Department for issuance of Notices upon share applicants. No such application was preferred before C.I.T. (Appeals) by this appellant. Hence, we see no reason at this stage to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for further verification of share applications. 7.It appears that similar type of cases are coming to this court often and most of the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
