TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 755
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HAMIM YAHYA: AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 28.10.2010 pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. 2. The issue raised is that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting an addition of ₹ 4,34,00,000/- on account of unexplained credits in the form of share application money. 3. In this case Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4,34,00,000/- Therefore, the A.R. was specifically asked to produce the Directors of above mentioned investors but the same were not produced. It has been noticed from the details filed by the A.R. That the investors are declaring very small income in their return of income and further noticed that before issue of cheque to M/s Ultra Modern Exports Pvt. Ltd. huge amounts are being transferred in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicants which was the main parameter to be discharged by the assessee in respect of the share application money. Accordingly, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) referred the following decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Dwarkadhish Investment P Ltd. [2010] 194 Taxman 43 (Delhi), wherein following was held:- "Though in s. 68 proceedings, the initial b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the assessee has been able to prove the identity of the share applicants and the share application money has been received by way of account payee cheques - No question of law arises." 4.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussion, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the addition amounting to ₹ 4,34,00,000/- is misconceived, hence, liable to be deleted. 5. Against the....