TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (2) TMI 209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the amount of investment by Sh. Prahlad Rai Ajmera, as unexplained cash credit. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, he ought to have deleted the addition made by the Asstt. CIT." 2. Shri Mahendra Gargieya, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the assessee. He submitted that both the persons, namely, Smt. Manju Devi Ajmera and Sh. Prahlad Rai Ajmera are existing income-tax assessees. Their statements were recorded by the AO. Both of them have confirmed the fact that they gave the amount as shown in the books of account partly for acquiring shares and balance amount was lying as a deposit with the company. The AO has treated the entire amount as unexplained cash credit on the ground that both of them are in service and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal Meera Engg. & Commercial Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (1997) 58 TTJ (Jab) 527. Once the appellant-company proves the identity of the shareholders and the shareholders confirm the fact of having given the money for allotment of shares, the burden which lies on the company stands discharged. Shri Gargieya also submitted that the company started trial production on 1st July, 1987. It was impossible for the company to earn any such undisclosed income in the year under consideration. The impossibility of company's capacity to generate any black income in the year under consideration also supports the assessee's prayer for deletion of this addition. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Gurbux Rai Harbux R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asst. yr. 1987-88, she had given a sum of Rs. 20,000 to the appellant as is apparent from her balance-sheet as on 31st March, 1987, placed at p. 7 of the paper book. In asst. yr. 1988-89, the total amount given to the assessee was Rs. 69,845 which consisted of two items. Rs. 40,000 represent investment in shares of that company and balance Rs. 29,845 has been shown as loan to the appellant-company. It is not in dispute that most of the amounts were given by her by cheque. The AO has observed that soon before giving cheque to the company the equivalent amount was deposited by Smt. Manju Devi in her bank account out of which cheque was given. This circumstance may justify a suspicion and may constitute a warning to the AO for conducting furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us capital formation and Smt. Manju Devi did not, in fact, own any such capital as shown in her IT return for asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1988-89. In the statement of Smt. Manju Devi, recorded by the AO on 23rd March, 1989, the lady gave name of some of the debtors. In reply to question No. 3, she stated that her income was kept invested as loan with various relatives such as Rampal, Chechani, Badanvads, Sh. Bansilal Kankani, Shri Sohan Lal Ajmera and also to her father Shri Sobha Ram. The AO could summon those debtors and ascertain the truth and correctness of the statement apart from confirming the fact that she gave Rs. 69,000 to the appellant-company, also explained the sources of her income. She is a graduate and working as a teacher in a re....