2011 (5) TMI 993

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ma ORDER Rajpal Yadav (Judicial Member) The revenue is in appeal before us against the order of Learned CIT(Appeals) dated 15.01.2009 passed for assessment year 2002-03. The revenue has pleaded that Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 10,20,000 which was added by the Assessing Officer on the ground that assessee has failed to explain share application money of &#8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g Officer that assessee has received share application money of ₹ 10 lacs from four concerns, namely; S.No. Name Amount Cheque No. Date 1. Kuberco Sales P. Ltd. 2,50,000 033922 02.12.2001 2. Royal Credits P Ltd. 2,50,000 011381 04.12.2001 3. Wood Craft Footware P.Ltd. 2,50,000 022079 28.02.2002 4. Satyam Hi Fab P. Ltd. 2,50,000 077619 15.03.2002 Total 10,00,000 3....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals). It challenged reopening of the assessment as well as additions on the merit. In support of its contention, it submitted that assessee has filed details of ITR, PAN, copy of the balance sheet and the details filed with the Registrar of Companies to substantiate that the amount of share application money received from the applicants were genuine....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ries. In other words, Assessing Officer has given more weightage to the statement of Shri Mahesh Garg then the documentary evidence. He belied the documentary evidence on the basis of this statement. This statement was not recorded in the assessment proceedings of the assessee. He is not associated with the assessee. His statement was recorded by the Addl. Director of IT (Inv.) He was not subjecte....