TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. AR. We are satisfied by the reasons of delay. The delay is condoned and accordingly the appeal is admitted disposal on merits. 3. The only issued raised in this appeal through different grounds is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 15,52,725 made by the AO u/s 68 on account of share application money. The first issue raised in the assessee's Cross-objection is against the initiation of re-assessment proceedings. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the re-assessment was initiated by means of notice u/s 148 dated 30/3/2009 with the reasons commencing as under:- "Information has been received from DI(Investigation),-1, New Delhi vide office letter D.O No. DIT (Inv.)-1/Delhi/E/2007-08/1137 dated 3/5/09/2007 endorsed to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urse of assessment proceedings that it received a sum of Rs. 31 lacs as share application money which was duly disclosed in the balance sheet. All the amounts were received through Demand drafts or account payee cheques and were reflected in the bank account of the assessee. Not only that, the assessee also gave complete details about these receipts by submitting DD/Cheque Nos, PAN and CIN Nos. of the persons from whom such amounts were received. In all, a sum of Rs. 31 lacs was received as share application money from 9 parties and the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 15,52,725/- (Rs.2,725 being draft commission) in respect of four parties. It can be seen from the assessment order itself that the Assessing Officer has proceeded on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enuineness of transaction. Where all such conditions are satisfied, in as much as, not only the identity of the creditors is proved but also their capacity and the geniuses of transactions, there can be no question of addition u/s 68. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the assessee gave full details of the identity of such corporate share applicants, their PAN Nos. and the evidence as to the genuineness of transactions. The AO did not find anything wrong with this evidence. In such a situation, we are of the considered opinion that no exception can be taken to the view canvassed by the ld. first appellate authority on this issue. 6. The reliance of the Ld. DR on the CIT Vs. Nova Promoters And Finelease (P) Ltd (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly brushes aside the assessee's explanation without any cogent reason and makes the addition in a mechanical manner, no addition is warranted. In our considered opinion, the extant case falls under the second category. Here also, the Assessing Officer did not make any effort to enquire into the matter. No summons u/s 131 were issued to the share applicants. No enquiry worth the name was conducted, but the addition was made in a routine manner. Respectfully following the judgment in . Fair Finvest Ltd. (supra), we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting this addition. 8. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 9. First ground of the assessee's Cross-objection is against the initiation of the assessment proceedings. 10. We....