2015 (10) TMI 2057

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AT') in ITA No. 2821/DEL/2011 for Assessment Year ('AY') 2003-04. 4. The question sought to be urged before the Court by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was correct in law in affirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT (A)'] deleting the addition in the sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer ('AO' ) to the income of the Assessee under Section 68 of the Act pertaining to share application/capital money received by the Assessee. 5. The Assessee filed its return of income for AY 2003-04 on 02nd December, 2003 declaring an income of Rs. 5,64,556/-. It appears that pursuant to information received from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was iss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e to increase the balance and thereafter invariably withdrawn within a day or two. Since the process was shown to be repeated over and over in the P&L Account of the Assessee, the AO concluded that there was no business activity worthy of mention. Concluding that the Assessee had failed to discharge the onus to prove the genuineness or the creditworthiness of the companies which had made the payments, the AO held that the share application money received from the companies should be treated as income in the hands of the Assessee. He accordingly ordered an addition of Rs. 60 lakhs. 8. The CIT(A) has in the order dated 18th March, 2011 observed that the AO has not referred to any material to disprove the extensive documents produced by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Nipun Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd.) and the decision dated 31st January, 2011 in ITA No. 2093/2010 (CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities (Pvt.) Ltd.). He urged that the CIT (A) had not discussed several findings of the AO which showed that the Assessee had not discharged the onus of proving the genuineness or the creditworthiness of the so-called investors. 11. The Court is essentially called upon to consider whether on the facts of the present case, the view taken by CIT(A) as confirmed by the ITAT could be said to be plausible or is it so perverse as to require interference by the Court? 12. A perusal of the order of the AO shows that its foundation is the report of the DIT (Investigation). Admittedly, the Assessee was not confronted with ....