TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (10) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by ginning and pressing, and then selling the processed cotton. The assessee filed its return of income on November 27, 1998, declaring a loss of Rs. 1,11,870. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1)(ii) were issued. The assessee commenced its business transactions in August, 1997, and processing activities in November 1997. The Assessing Officer (Income-tax Officer, Itarsi) found that the balance-sheet showed Rs. 7,52,000 as paid up capital and Rs. 6,61,000 as share application money received pending allotment. The assessee's accounts also showed unsecured loans aggregating to Rs. 33,75,665 and Rs. 41,42,606 as the amount due to the suppliers of raw material (i.e., agriculturists). The Assessing Off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....completing the assessment." Thereafter, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to produce the creditors shown under the heads of share applicants, unsecured loans and trade creditors for examination. The assessee accordingly produced the applicants for shares, unsecured creditors and trade creditors except Kailash Bhikamchand (trade creditor) and Devi Singh (share applicant). The Assessing Officer therefore did not accept the credits relating to the said creditor and share applicant and added a sum of Rs. 10,500 and Rs. 19,200, respectively (which were shown as amounts received from them), to the income of the assessee. In regard to two other persons, namely, Bhikaji Dhanna Lal and Radheshyam Laxmi Singh, who were produced for exam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onclusion that there was no basis for the Commissioner of Income-tax to hold that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the appeal and quashed the order dated March 28, 2003, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue has filed this appeal contending that the following substantial questions of law arise on the facts and circumstances of the case for consideration: (i) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he capital were not genuine, under no circumstances the amount of share capital could be regarded as undisclosed income of the company, if the identity of the shareholder was proved. In short, the Tribunal found that having regard to the fact that the persons who had deposited the share application money were examined and found to be income-tax assessees with PAN numbers, the order of the Assessing Officer accepting the credits in this behalf was correct. The Tribunal thus found that the evidence that was made available to the Assessing Officer in regard to the credits was satisfactory and therefore there was no justification to direct a re-examination and investigation. Re.: Rs. 33,43,286 (unsecured loans): The Tribunal found that out of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the interests of the Revenue. We find that the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, do not suffer from any infirmity and do not give rise to any question of law. It is true that the Assessing Officer has not discussed every item of credit separately. He has referred to the total amounts under each head in regard to which proof/evidence was sought. He has referred to the evidence that was let in. Wherever the evidence was satisfactory, he has not discussed the evidence. Wherever the evidence was not satisfactory, he has given reasons for adding the amounts to the income. It is true that the Assessing Officer could have said in regard to other credits that the evidence was satisfactory and acceptable, to avoid any doubt. But the mere ....