TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on was not supplied till, the hearing held today. We have been informed by Mr Sahni, who appears for the revenue, that the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 1997- 98 was challenged by way of an appeal bearing ITA No. 938/2005. A Division Bench of this court vide order dated 05.10.2005 dismissed the said appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 2. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which is, that even though notice was issued to the assessee by an order dated 15.07.2009, despite several opportunities having been granted to the revenue, the service, has not been effected on the assessee. Even on the last date, i.e., 03.08.2011, a further opportunity had been granted to the revenue in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unts in issue, did not belong to the assessee. In this connection, the A.O. alluded to the following effect: (i) the fixed deposit forms were filled up in a manner which was clumsy; (ii) One depositor by the name of Ms Pamela Manmohan Singh, who had visited his office, had returned envelopes in respect of four other persons and made a statement on oath that the said four persons did not reside at the address given; which was her own address; (iii) the said Pamela Manmohan Singh also adverted to the fact that she was unaware of any deposits made either by her husband, who had passed away on 02.06.1999, or those made in the name of her married daughter, residing in Mumbai as also her grandson living with his mother in Delhi. To be noted, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)']. The CIT(A) examined the matter at great length. In paragraph 5 the CIT(A) recorded the errors which the A.O had made according to the assessee. These broadly were as follows: (i) even though the A.O. had accepted that the deposits made by sixteen (16) persons were genuine, the same were included in the addition made by the A.O.; (ii) in case of Mr Manmohan Singh, i.e., the husband of Ns Pamela Manmohan Singh, the deposits made had subsequently been repaid alongwith the interest, to Ms Pamela Manmohan Singh, thus establishing the identity of the depositor(s); (iii) the returned envelopes of Runen Roy was a case of renewal of an earlier deposit and hence, no addition was called for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id four (4) entities had accepted the factum of having made deposits with the assessee; (vii) the deposits have been accepted through account payee cheques, and tax have been deducted by the assessee at source, which in turn, had been duly deposited with the government treasury. The deposits had also been further repaid to the said four (4) entities/ persons. None of the persons had given any statements contrary to what the assessee had stated. These four (4) entities/ persons being: Manmohan Singh, Manjit Malhotra, N.C. Desai and Runen Roy. To be noted the details pertaining to these four (4) entities/ persons are discussed in detail in paragraphs 5(ix) to (xiii), hence we do not propose to dialate upon the same in order to avoid prolixit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of some of the investors. It further observed that merely because certain application forms of depositors did not contain their PAN and GIR number(s), cheque number(s) and draft number(s) would not make the forms invalid. The fact that notices had been issued to all eighty six (86) persons and that some of them did not respond to the same, could not result in an adverse finding being returned against the assessee. It also noted the fact that assessee was a public limited company and registered with the RBI as NBFC, and that its shares were quoted on major stock markets of the country. 3.7 Taking into account these factors the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the A.O had erred in coming to the conclusion which he did, merely because....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact that since then, money had been returned to them. The fact that these investors had received interest, and that tax had been deducted at source, is also noted in the order of the CIT(A). These findings of the CIT(A) have not been impugned before us. As has been noted in CIT(A)'s order the exercise carried out by the A.O. was so ad hoc that in his enthusiasm he forgot to give credit even for those deposits which, according to him, were genuine. These were deposits pertaining to sixteen (16) persons who had responded to the summons issued by him. These deposits, as per the CIT(A)'s order amounted to Rs. 7,40,000/-, which the A.O. for some curious reason had thought fit to include in the total addition made in the income of the assessee ....