Tribunal upholds CIT(A) order, rejects Revenue appeal, citing substantial evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming the deletion of the addition of share application money in the assessee's case. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided substantial evidence establishing the legitimacy of the transaction and the credibility of the share applicant, in line with Supreme Court precedents that such additions cannot be made in the assessee's hands.

---

---

Issues involved: Revenue appeal against deletion of addition of share application money u/s 68 made by AO.

Summary:
1. The AO added the share application money under s. 68 to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for reevaluation. Despite providing details about the share applicant, Smt. Shakuntla Devi, the AO made the additions again.
2. In the first appeal, the assessee submitted various documents including the bank statement of Smt. Shakuntla Devi and her assessment order for the relevant year. The CIT(A) examined the material and deleted the addition after considering the evidence presented.
3. The CIT(A) found that the entire share application money received by the appellant was transferred from the bank account of Smt. Shakuntla Devi's company. The balance sheet of the company also reflected the amount as 'advance to be recoverable in cash or in kind'.
4. The counsel for the assessee argued that the identity and creditworthiness of Smt. Shakuntla Devi, as well as the genuineness of the transaction, were established from the record. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., it was contended that share application money cannot be treated as undisclosed income.
5. After considering the rival contentions and the evidence on record, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) order, stating that the assessee had provided substantial evidence to prove the legitimacy of the transaction and the share applicant's credibility. The Tribunal also noted the Supreme Court's ruling on similar cases, affirming that such additions cannot be made in the assessee's hands.
6. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the deletion of the addition of share application money in the assessee's case.

---