Commissioner of Income Tax vs Illac Investment (P) Ltd.

The respondent-assessed had for the asst. yr. 1989-90 disclosed in its return sum of Rs. 4,75,000 received as share application money. The AO added the said amount to the taxable income of the assessed u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961, on the ground that the identity of the subscribers had not been established. In an appeal filed by the assessed against the said order, the CIT(A) held that the assessed had satisfactorily established the identity of the share subscribers. The view taken with the AO was, accordingly, reversed. The Tribunal has in a further appeal filed by the Revenue before it placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Antartica Investment Pvt. Ltd., and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd., held that the respondent-assessed had discharged the onus by reference to the material produced to establish the identity of the subscribers. The Tribunal has observed:

On going through the various orders to which reference has been made by the learned Counsel for the assessed, it is found that on similar facts the additions made by the AO have been deleted. So far as the present case is concerned, the learned CIT(A) has considered the facts and circumstances in detail and has recorded findings of fact. He has also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd., . The learned CIT(A) has also considered the provisions of Sections 72, 75 and 77 of the Companies Act and has also taken into consideration the details furnished by the assessed before the AO including the certificate of incorporation of subscribers, copies of their bank statement and copies of their assessment orders as well as the copies of their audited accounts. The findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) are based on proper appraisal of the material and we do not find any scope to interfere with the same. Consequently, order of learned CIT(A) is upheld.

In the light of the above concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, we see no substantial question of law arising for our consideration in this appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed.