2013 (4) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessment year, the Assessing Officer made an assess-ment under section 143(3) of the Act on March 16, 1992, on a total income of Rs. 25,59,137. The Assessing Officer made additions on account of unex-plained share capital, unexplained share application money, unexplained sundry creditors, difference in the cost of construction being unexplained investment, FDRs purchased by the company, loading and unloading and salary expenses. 4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal on July 31, 1992, deleting the addition of Rs. 15,07,920 made against the unexplained share capital, Rs. 3,13,500 out of the addition made against the unexplained share application money of Rs. 4,68,100, and Rs. 46,500 out of the addition made agains....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e failed completely to produce these share-holders and the summons issued by the Assessing Officer at the given addresses are received back unserved ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the assessee's appeal in respect of charging of interest under section 215/217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even when a direction to this effect had been given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order ?" 8. We have gone through the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal find that the assessee had produced relevant evidence before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) establishing that all the per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....we find no infir-mity with the impugned judgment. 3. Subject to the above, special leave petition is dismissed." 11. In CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 263 (SC) ; [2000] 164 CTR 287 (SC) the Supreme Court held that no addition in share application can be made in the accounts of the company. In such case, the Department can assess the individuals, who have contributed the share. 12. This court in CIT v. Jay Dee Securities and Finance Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No. 328 of 2010 decided on August 11, 2011) (since reported in [2013] 350 ITR 220 (All)) followed the judgment in CIT v. Lovely Exports [2009] 319 ITR (St.) 5. 13. In view of the above, question No. 1 is decided against the Revenue, and in favour of the assessee. 14. So....