TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestions of law:- "[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has correctly appreciated the facts on record in restoring the issue relating to addition made on account of share capital, to the file of the Assessing Officer, when the assessee was not able to prove even the identity of share holders and where notices issued to the share holders were returned unserved? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has correctly appreciated the facts on record in restoring the issue relating to addition of Rs. 6,79,020/- to the file of the Assessing Officer when the assessee failed to provide even the PAN No?" 3. To briefly summarize the facts, for the assessment year 1996-97, an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue further argued that the Tribunal ought not to have restored back the file to the Assessing Officer in wake of such glaring fact. He has also urged that the assessee failed to provide Permanent Account Numbers. 7. As against that, learned advocate Mr. Tej Shah appearing for the respondent had attempted to point out from the order of CIT (Appeals) as well as that of the Tribunal that the assessee has discharged its onus by effectively and totally submitting copies of share applications and also indicating that it received money through the channel of Bank. He further urged that it was a sufficient discharge of obligation for the assessee to establish identity of share contribution. Thus, when the bona fides of the assessee has been p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the tune of Rs. 20,33,000/-, Rs. 1,71,68,000/- and Rs. 4,00,77,500/- respectively. Only Madura Bank could not send confirmation report as its branch in Ahmedabad was closed. CIT (Appeals) also found that the entire money had come through the Banking channel and the share holders had contributed to share applications from various places. Only on the ground that out of 68 parties, 56 parties did not respond to the notices sent under Section 133(6), CIT (Appeals) did not find any justification in making addition of the entire share capital. Accordingly to CIT (Appeals), since, there was no response from these 56 parties, the contribution reflected of those shareholders, who did not respond, could still be justifiably added under Section 68....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In those cases where notices are not served and returned back to the A.O., opportunity will be given to assessee to prove the identity of the shareholders." 10. What all the Tribunal has done is to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer by specifically directing the assessee respondent to furnish the addresses of all the shareholders as initial burden is required to be discharged by the assessee to the extent of establishing the identity of the shareholders. The rest as held by Tribunal needs to be taken care of by the department as the Tribunal followed the decision of the Delhi High Court. 11. On adverting to the contentions of both the sides and on examination of material on record, a mention needs to be made of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....robable task considering huge number of applicants, is though at first blush may look appealing, in essence, may not hold a very sustainable base in as much as huge amount of investment is found to have flown from identifiable legalized channels, which included contribution by promoters etc. If the order of Tribunal is not sustained, entire investment in the share capital would result in being bracketed with unexplained funds. Again, simply because the task is mammoth, the same can not ipso facto become impossible nor can that be a ground to deter the adjudicating authority from undertaking the same. Not only an opportunity to the assessee should be made available to present its case but also an opportunity should be given to the department....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er to decide the issue afresh on the ground that the assessee had to prove the creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction for availing an opportunity to the respondent assessee to provide PAN. If one examines this issue closely, it appears that CIT (Appeals) was of the firm opinion that sufficient opportunities were made available to the assessee and even before the appellate authority, it could not adduce the requisite evidence in connection with Rajendra Finance and therefore, addition made by the Assessing Officer to that extent was upheld by the CIT (Appeals). The Tribunal, however, did not concur with CIT (Appeals) in this regard but availed of one more opportunity to the assessee respondent. Although, it can be n....