9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share application money from two parties. The assessee could not prove the genuineness of the share application money and therefore, in an assessment order passed under s. 143(3) on 30th March, 2000, an addition of Rs. 2.70 crores was made. The assessee carried the matter before learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) set aside the issue to the file of AO. Again the AO confirmed the addition while assessing the income under s. 143(3) on 11th March, 2002. 3. Dissatisfied with the addition assessee carried the matter in appeal before learned CIT(A). Before learned CIT(A), assessee raised number of arguments and ultimately learned CIT(A) called for the remand report. In the remand proceedings, assessee was able to discharge its onus put upon it by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his contention he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd. (1991) 99 CTR (Del) 40 : (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del) and emphasized that this judgment has been approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reported in CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (SC) 287 : (2000) 251 ITR 263 (SC). On the strength of this decision, he submitted that in the case of a limited company if the identity is proved then no further enquiry is required to be made. For buttressing his very argument learned counsel for the assessee further put reliance on the decision reported in Allen Bradley India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Del) 604 : (2002) 80 ITD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rthiness of the creditors as well as genuineness of the transaction. But the third condition which is equally important, and which empowers the Department to investigate the source of funds in the hands of the creditor is to pinpoint the identity of the creditor. In the present case for fulfilling this condition assessee has filed peripheral documents i.e., acknowledgement of the return filed with the Department and the alleged registration of investor under the Companies Act. However, when on such addresses the AO issued the summons then those summons received back unattended. Thus, the acknowledgement of return in itself is not sufficient to prove the identity of a person or to disclose a true address. Had in persuasion of the return some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t some of the observation made in the decision of Hon'ble Court: "The decision in CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd. (1991) 99 CTR (Del) 40 : (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del) cited by Mr. Pal is no longer good raw in view of the decision in CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1993) 113 CTR (Del)(FB) 472 : (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del)(FB). But Mr. Pal contended that Sophia Finance Ltd.'s case is no more a good law since Stellar Investment Ltd.'s case was affirmed by the apex Court in CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (SC) 287 : (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC). But this view does not seem to be correct. In Stellar Investment Ltd.'s case, the apex Court had passed the following order: 'We have read the question which the High Court answered against the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
