2010 (10) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 respectively. 2. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the addition of ' 32,00,00/- made by the Assessing Officer (in short, "AO") under Section 68 of the Act. Mr. Sabharwal further submitted that the Tribunal had deleted the said addition even though the primary onus had not been discharged by the respondent-assessee. 3. However, upon a perusal of the file, we find that the said addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"] and Tribunal on the ground that the initial onus had been discharged by the respondent-assessee. In fact, the CIT(A) in its order has observed as under:- "I have gone throug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the amount of share application money as unexplained income of the appellant does not appear to be justified. In this regard, reliance is placed on the recent decision of CIT Vs.  Lovely Exports (supra), CIT Vs. Divine Leasing Pvt. Ltd.  (supra), CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish Financial Services (supra) and other similar judicial pronouncements. Since in the first two cases, the SLP of the department has also been dismissed by the Apex Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the assessee has discharged the initial onus on it by placing on record various supporting documents including PAN numbers. xxx xxx xxx After examining the facts and arguments in the present case, I am of the opini....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri D.K.  Gupta on whose statement the Assessing Officer had relied upon that the assessee had received accommodation entries and the parties subscribed the share application money were not genuine. In the recent decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs.  Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR (SC) 195, the question to be decided before their Lordships was: "Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" While answering to the above question, their Lordships have concluded that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, th....