TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 1202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l question of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the Tribunal are not perverse in reversing the order of the CIT (A) by which the additions made u/s. 68 for a sum of Rs. 2,67,95,000/- were deleted?" 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the observation of the AO which reads as under:- "In response to above, the assessee has filed the details of share capital money vide its letter No.JHCL/99-2000 dated 10.08.1999. The details filed reveal that there are number of share applicants who applied for allotment of shares, most of them are residing in Delhi and the applicants applied for allotment of shares through D.D.s mostly of Rs. 2 lac each. The assessee,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the share allotment with proof of despatch thereafter. The appellant filed the photo copies of the share application but informed the AO vide their letter dated 31.08.1999 with the directors of the company did not consider the allotment of shares favourable to the company and as such they did not allot the shares to any of these applicants and the share application money remained with the company till date. The company in the last invested the share application money in purchase of flat at Mumbai. The AO looking to the peculiar facts of the case required the appellant to produce all the persons/share applicants for examination as per notice u/s 142(1) dated 21.10.1999. The appellant vide their reply dated 25.10.1999 expressed their inabili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the applicants are residing in Delhi. In that view of the matter the view taken by the both the authorities is required to be reversed. 5. However, counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment in the case of Commission of Income Tax-I Vs. M/s. ARL Infratech, Ltd.,(D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.24/2014) decided on 28.09.2016 wherein this court has held as under:- "4. Counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the all companies which were floated early one week prior to the public issue and only because their applications have a PAN number and the payment through cheque with credit worthiness and their worth was not examined. The Assessing Officer while considering the same has relied upon the inspector report. How....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessmkents in accordance with law. Hence, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment." 7. Counsel for the respondents relied upon following decisions:- (I) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd., (1986) 159 ITR 0078 (ii) Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 283 ITR 0377 (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Stellar Investment Ltd. (Delhi High Court), (1991) 192 ITR 0287 (iv) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Steller Investement Ltd. (Supreme Co....