2023 (3) TMI 1455

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted to consider following questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding investor to be not credit worthy? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in not considering the total aggregate investment claimed to be made by Shri. Samyak C. Veera, the investor to determine as to whether the investor was credit worthy? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside addition made under Section 68 of the Act even when assessee - Company was unable to submit any supporting docu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as receipt towards investment of shares by Shri. Samyak was brought to tax as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act and added to taxable income. 4. The CIT(A) (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) in his order dated 28.02.2018 has recorded that evidence in the form of Bank accounts were furnished in support of the investment made by Shri. Samyak C. Veera. The entries were available in the said Bank documents of Foreign Bank accounts and transactions were in the nature of inter Bank transfers and accordingly held that it was not a case for the Assessing Officer to invoke provisions under Section 68 of the Act. So far as assessee's challenge with regard to invocation of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act, the CIT(A) held t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ani, learned Advocate for the assessee, argued opposing the appeal. 8. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 9. The first and second questions of law revolve upon the credit worthiness of the investor. Revenue's case is that investor had suffered loss during 2003, 2004 and 2006 and therefore, assessee's claim with regard to his investment in the Company was doubtful. We may record that the Tribunal, which is the last fact finding authority has recorded in para 4 of the impugned order that remittances were made on two dates namely 31.05.2007 and 05.06.2007 and both these dates are relevant for A.Y. 2008-09. In para 6 it is recorded that the net income of the investor was USD 33,12,256 whereas the remit....