9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (the Act), challenges the order dated 18th October, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 18th October, 2016 is in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Revenue urges the following question of law, for our consideration: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 19.40 Crores. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30th December, 2010, the Respondent filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated 28th March, 2012, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 19.40 Crores after calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The remand report indicated that all twenty parties who had subscribed to the shares of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue filed an Appeal to the Tribunal. On facts, the Tribunal found that the identity and capacity of the shareholders as well as the genuineness of the transactions stood established. Further, it records that the Revenue is not able to submit anything in support of its challenge to the order of the CIT(A), except stating that the order of the Assessing Officer requires to be restored. Thus, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a representative and made submissions in support of their investments. Further, the impugned order records that change of address was given to the Assessing Officer and yet it appears that notice was served on an incorrect address. Further, Tribunal also records that in fact, one of the Director of the Company which has subscribed the shares, had given also an affidavit, stating that, the Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
