9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e exercising such power, the Commissioner was bound to take into account all relevant facts. If order invoking the said power proceeds on an erroneous assumption, the same could be set aside by the Tribunal. Finding of the Tribunal is not shown to be perverse - 445 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 17-8-2009 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and DAYA CHAUDHARY, JJ. Mr.Sukant Gupta, Standing Counsel for the Revenue. JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) - This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short,"the Act") against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' Delhi passed in ITA No. 43/Del/2006 dated 31.7.2007 for the assessment year 2001-02, proposing to raise the follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk statements. So far as the examination of the issue at the assessment stage is concerned, we find that the AO made specific query from the assessee in relation to this issue. The query is as under: "9. Share capital has increased from Rs.19,78,000/- to Rs.33,28,000/-. Please furnish copies of a/cs of persons, who have invested in shares and furnish complete description of such persons. Also prove the evidence of source of investment made by such persons." In reply to this query the assessee had filed reply giving full details of the Share application money. This reply has been made through letter dated 24.2.2003 and is available at page 77 of the paper-book. The assessee also filed the details of share application money as on 31.3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r reply was given by the assessee. Thus the AO has made the assessment only after examining the material produced before him. Order of the learned CIT holding that the order of the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because the AO has not applied his mind, is not justified." 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner rightly held that share capital had increased during the assessment order and the assessee failed to produce the share holders but the Assessing Officer failed to draw adverse inference. The Assessing Officer also failed to draw adverse inference with regard to un-secured loan from Pramod Khurana. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
