2010 (1) TMI 1183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 50,90,000 contributed by the following persons as share capital of the assessee company: 1. Ramalinga Raju Rs.23 lakhs 2. J. Krishna Rao Rs.15.95 lakhs 3. Smt. Jeevitha Mala Rs.7 lakhs 4. Shri Sivarama Raju Rs.5 lakhs     The addition was made on the grounds that identity and creditworthiness of the investors in the share capital application money is not proved. On appeal, the CIT(A) called for remand report from the assessing officer and wherein the remand report, the assessing officer failed to point out any reasons for rejecting identity as well as credit worthiness of the share ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the repudiation. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In the present case, the CIT(A) called for Remand Report from the assessing officer. The assessing officer sent the remand report vide reference No.ITO.3(2)/RR/9/10 dated as follows: i) As seen from the Affidavit filed by Shri D. Ramalinga Raju, the entire amount of Rs. 23,00,000 has been invested in the company by way of transfer from his bank account. On perusal of the said bank account, it is seen that there are instances of cash deposits into his bank account on the day the transfer was affected. Shri D. Ramalinga Raju submitted the details of the sources for the cheques and the cash deposits in the bank account with ICICI bank, SR Nagar Branc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hi (Full Bench), wherein it was held that for the operation of section 68, it would be immaterial whether the amount is credited in the books in the share application money account and it was held that S.68 is applicable in respect of share application money. 5.3. In the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (216 ITR 195) (SC), wherein it was held that even if the share application money is received by the assessee company from the alleged bogus share holders whose names are given to the assessing officer, then the department is free to proceed their individual assessment in accordance with law but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee. 5.4. In the case of VIT Vs. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. (307 ITR 334), wherein i....