TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (3) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n remand, in the course of the enquiry, opportunity was given to the assessee. It was found that the income-tax file numbers of the promoters and directors were disclosed and all those payments were made by cheques except a sum of Rs. 20,000 subscribed in cash by one Amarnath Gupta, who is not an income-tax assessee. The rest Rs. 19,88,750 was subscribed by the general public. Despite successive opportunity being given, nothing was disclosed about the identity of the subscribers except furnishing a list of subscribers. Therefore, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) had again remanded the case in respect of shares worth Rs. 3,80,000 for investigation of the income-tax files for ascertaining their creditworthiness and genuineness of the tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is for the Assessing Officer to find out as to whether on these materials the assessee was able to establish the ingredients mentioned above. If the finding is in the affirmative, in that event, section 68 cannot be attracted. If the finding is in the negative, then section 68 is definitely applicable. It is now a settled proposition of law that the Assessing Officer can lift the veil and enquire into the real nature of the transaction and enter into those questions. The finding that is arrived at may be a finding of fact, which may be a pure question of fact. It might be a question of inference drawn from the finding of fact, which is a question of law. These are dependent on the facts of each case. Therefore, we are required to examine ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as such the Full Bench decision in Sophia Finance Ltd.'s case [1994] 205 ITR 98 (Delhi), overruling Stellar Investment Ltd.'s case [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Delhi) is not a judgment per incuriam. Therefore, having regard to the decision in law and the decision cited, the question remains open to be decided according to the settled principle of law. Mr. Deb has also relied on a decision in CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal). In the said decision, it was held that mere furnishing of income-tax file numbers are not sufficient. In fact, once these materials have been produced, it is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to enquire into the same. In this case, in respect of shares worth Rs. 3,80,000, direction was rightly given to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cash credits. Secondly, it is beyond doubt that the appellant has collected the share capital from the public issue and accounted for the same. We are unable to accept that the promoters and directors invested their own money in the names of others. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bharat Engineering and Construction Co.'s case [1972] 83 ITR 187 and the decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal reported in 38 ITD 555 and the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in 24 ITD 504 we are not inclined to agree with the view held by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in this respect. These entire evidence and the case law lead us to arrive at a conclusion that the share capital collected by ....