Appeal denied for lack of evidence on share application money source. Remitted for fair hearing.

The appeal was against the addition of Rs. 501,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to lack of confirmation from the investor or directors of the investor company. Despite efforts to produce evidence, the appellant failed to prove the nature and source of the share application money. The Commissioner upheld the addition, as no substantial evidence was provided. In a separate issue, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, allowing the appellant a fair hearing opportunity. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 501000 under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961
2. Application for additional evidences under section 46A of the I.T. Act

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the addition of Rs. 501000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer received information regarding a receipt of Rs. 5,01,000 by the assessee company from an investor, which was claimed as share application money. Despite producing certain documents, the assessee failed to provide confirmation from the investor or the directors of the investor company. The Assessing Officer issued summons to the directors, but they were either returned unserved or not complied with. Consequently, the amount was added as unexplained cash credit. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed for additional evidences, but the Ld. Commissioner noted that no substantial evidence was produced beyond publicly accessible documents. The Ld. Commissioner upheld the addition under section 68, stating that the appellant failed to discharge its onus of proving the nature and source of the share application money.

2. In the appeal, the assessee contended that they were not given an opportunity to rebut the information received from the Investigation Wing regarding the alleged bogus accommodation. The assessee requested a chance to submit necessary documents to satisfy the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. The Tribunal found that justice required the matter to be remitted to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, providing the assessee with a fair hearing opportunity. Consequently, the appeal by the Assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

---