TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed, CIT(A) order upheld deleting Rs.24,80,000 addition under Section 68</h1> <h3>Assistant Commisioner Of Income-Tax. Versus Anima Investment Ltd.</h3> Assistant Commisioner Of Income-Tax. Versus Anima Investment Ltd. - [2000] 73 ITD 125, [2000] 68 TTJ 1, [2001] 247 ITR (A. T.) 22 Issues Involved:1. Validity of CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs.24,80,000.2. Applicability of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's enquiries.4. Whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.Summary:Issue 1: Validity of CIT(A)'s Deletion of the Addition of Rs.24,80,000The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order that deleted the addition of Rs.24,80,000 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the disallowance as the assessee had provided sufficient details about the shareholders, and the onus to prove the source of investment was on the shareholders, not the company.Issue 2: Applicability of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961The Assessing Officer treated the entire amount of share capital as income from undisclosed sources u/s 68 after sending query letters to 12 shareholders, most of which were returned unserved or received no replies. The CIT(A) and the ITAT referenced the decision in the case of Standard Cylinders (P.) Ltd, which held that the company is not required to prove the source of investment of its shareholders.Issue 3: Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's EnquiriesThe CIT(A) and the ITAT found that the Assessing Officer's enquiry, which involved only 12 out of about 600 shareholders, was not a true sample of the basic mass. The assessee had provided detailed information about the shareholders, including their addresses, share application forms, and bank details. The CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer's enquiry into the source of investment was unauthorized and uncalled for.Issue 4: Whether the Matter Should be Restored to the Assessing Officer for Fresh AdjudicationThere was a difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Accountant Member on whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer. The Judicial Member upheld the CIT(A)'s order, while the Accountant Member suggested a fresh adjudication in light of the decision in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. The Third Member agreed with the Judicial Member, concluding that the assessee had provided sufficient details and that the Assessing Officer had failed to make adequate enquiries.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs.24,80,000 was upheld. The ITAT found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing necessary details and that the Assessing Officer's limited enquiry was insufficient to justify the addition under Section 68. The matter was not restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
TaxTMI 