Appe!Lajnt v. Respondentg.p. Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR /2012 OivisiOH Benck TAX CASE N0. 3r APPELLANT:• "r.:'^.^te^-:.vs^..;:;1.^^''-RESPONbENT: ofIncomeTax, :^CommissionerRaipur (CG)vsRaipur (CG)vs /6.P. Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Clo PritpalFarm House, VIP Road, Raipur. s^""' APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THEINCOME TAX ACT. 1961 . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURDIVISION BENCH CORAM:HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J.HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J Tax Case No. 35 of 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur. Appe!lajnt VERSUS RespondentG.P. Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Raipur. Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 Appearance: Shri Anand Dadariya, counsel for the Appellant. ORDER (26th[November,][ 2012)] 1.A search was conducted on 16.07.2007 in Chandhok and SainiGroup. G.P. Ispat Private Limited, Raipur (the Assessee) is a part of thegroup. 2.In pursuance of a search, it was found that a sum of ?40,28,444/-was deposited with the Assessee in the assessment year 2005-06. Outof this amount, ?20,00,000/- was received in cash and ?4,00,000/- wasreturned to the applicants in the same assessment year. 3.On03.10.2007,theAssesseeproducedthenamesof27applicants before the Assessing Officer mentioning therein the detailedsum as to who has paid what amount and list of the same is reproducedin the order of the Assessing Officer. Outof the list mentioned therein,four persons namely Sl. No.23 to 26 converted their money as loanaccount. 4.The Assessing Officer by his order dated 31.12.2009 added thesum of ?40,28,844/- in the income ofthe Assessee. v padma 5.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed an appeal. Itwas allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax Officer in CIT(A) on18.03.2010.The CIT filed an appeal before the Income-tax AppellateTribunal which was dismissed on 19.10.2011.Hence, the presentappeal. 6.We have heard counsel for the Appellant. 7.The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have recorded the finding thatthe identity of the share applicants was established and in case theywere bogus share applicants, then, it was always open to the IncomeTax Department to reopen their assessment. 8.There is no illegality in the order. No substantial question of lawarises.The appeal has no merit. It isdismissed. Sd/-Sd/-ChiefJusticeSunilKumarSinhaJudge