2016 (9) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h. Ved Jain and Sh. Pranjal Srivastava, Advocates ORDER 1. The revenue is aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2016 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which confirmed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s order [hereafter "CIT(A)"]. The CIT(A) had ruled in favour of the assessee, i.e. the additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter "the Act"] were unwarranted. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ected addition of `78 lakhs. The AO's conclusions were based upon his deduction that the share applicants were bogus entities, which he arrived at because of assessee's omission to produce the Directors of such share applicants/companies despite being called upon to do so. The CIT(A) reversed this addition; that order was confirmed by the ITAT. 3. It is urged on behalf of the revenue that the AO'....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plicants too had been provided. In the circumstances, it was held that the assessee had established the identity of the share applicants, the genuineness of transactions and their creditworthiness. The AO chose to proceed no further but merely added the amounts because of the absence of the Directors to physically present themselves before him. 5. The ITAT has relied upon a decision of this Court....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch material into judicial conclusions would be improper, more so when the assessee produced material. The least that the assessing officer ought to have done was to enquire into the matter by, if necessary, invoking his powers under Section 131 summoning the share applicants or directors. No effort was made in that regard. In the absence of any such finding that the material disclosed was untrustw....