Jyoti v. Jani

C/TAXAP/1071/2008 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1071 of 2008 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,VersusANAND PROPERTY FINANCE LTD. ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 13/06/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following question was framed at the time of admission of the appeal. Appellate Tribunal. Following question was framed at the time of admission of the appeal. “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming order passed by the CIT (A) deleting the addition of Rs. 71,62,200/- u/s. 68 of the Act in respect of unexplained share capital?” 2. The issue pertains to genuineness of share application money received by the respondent-company. Out of the total of Rs. 1.42 crores (rounded off) of share application money, the Assessing Officer disbelieved genuineness of Rs. 71.62 lacs (rounded off) and added the same as the income of the assessee from other sources. This was primarily on the ground received by the respondent-company. Out of the total of Rs. 1.42 crores (rounded off) of share application money, the Assessing Officer disbelieved genuineness of Rs. 71.62 lacs (rounded off) and added the same as the income of the assessee from other sources. This was primarily on the ground that the assessee had not been able to supply PAN details of all investors. CIT (A) however, deleted the addition noting that names and addresses of the share applicants were furnished. Notices u/s. 133(6) of the Income Tax Act were duly served on them except in couple of isolated cases. The Tribunal further observed that the department, after making an inquiry from the share applicants, had not brought on record any material to show that any of the share applicants were non-existent or had not claimed to have paid the share application money. 3. Such being the position, we do not think the Tribunal committed any error. The Tribunal noted that only in one isolated case, the notice could not be served. The record would suggest that all the share applicants, who were served, were found to be genuine and there was no complaint about not depositing share application money with the company.committed any error. The Tribunal noted that only in one isolated case, the notice could not be served. The record would suggest that all the share applicants, who were served, were found to be genuine and there was no complaint about not depositing share application money with the company. 4. In the result, the question is answered against the Revenue. Tax Appeal is dismissed.Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) JYOTI V. JANI (B.N. KARIA, J)