TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 677
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961, on account of share application money." 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development and filed return of income electronically on 15.11.2007 declaring an income of Rs. 91,21,962/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment and the AO made certain disallowances including an addition of Rs. 21 lakh u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of introduction of bogus share capital. The assessee preferred an appeal which was allowed by directing the AO to delete the impugned addition made u/s 68 of the Act. Now, the aggrieved revenue is before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n-production of lenders/shareholders cannot be a ground for making addition. The DR also contended that the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not sustainable that there is no further responsibility of the assessee to show that it has come from accounted source of the lender/share application money contributor. 5. Replying to the above, ld. AR supported the impugned order and submitted that the assessee submitted all details before the AO but the AO proceeded to make addition in a hasty manner ignoring the fact that the assessee vide its reply dated 8.10.2009 furnished a chart showing names along with addresses of the 15 parties from whom share application money was received with their share application form and PAN No. The AR further submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elhi High Court relying on the judgement of the Apex Court in Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has dismissed the department's appeals in limine vide its recent orders in the case of CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Dwarkadhish Capital Pvt. Ltd (ITA nos. 911/2010 and 913/2010 order dated 02.08.2010), CIT v. Green Tech Tower Builders Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 1113/2010 order dated 12.08.2010) and CIT v. Ultratech Finance & Investment Ltd. (ITA no. 1122/2010 order dated 12.08.2010). In the case of-Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Dwarakdhish Capital Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court vide its common order dated 02.08.2010 has interalia observed as under: "7. Consequently, the doctrine of merger would app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view that the present appeals amount to relitigation. The Supreme Court in K.K. Modi Vs. K.N. Modi and Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 573 has held, "It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The reagitation mayor may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be reagitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the court...." 12. Though we were initially inclined to impose costs yet we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met by giving a direction to the Revenue to be more careful before filing appeals in a routine manner, In our view, appeal should not be filed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f AO would certainly vitiate the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. 230 ITR 580(SC) wherein it was held that where prima facie, the inference on facts is that the assessee's explanation is probable, then the onus will shift on the revenue to disprove it and the assessee's explanation in such cases cannot be rejected merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. In the present case, when the summons issued to the alleged investors could not be complied with, without any further effort and verification, the AO proceeded to make an addition u/s 68 of the Act merely relying on the information received from the Investigation Wing of the dep....