Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/1501/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 1501 of 2009
=========================================================
COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX-II - Appellant(s)
Versus
MARCK
PARENTERALS (I) LTD - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
MAUNA M BHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date
: 22/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
Revenue
is in appeal against judgement of the tribunal dated 31.7.2008
raising following question for our consideration:
“Whether
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the
order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.53,26,160/-
made on account of new share capital issued on private placement
treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act?”
From
the record, it emerges that assessee company had raised additional
capital by issue of equity shares to the tune of Rs.53,26,160/-. The
Assessing Officer believed that company had not carefully followed
the procedure for issuing equity shares on foreign direct investment
treating such remittance as unexplained cash credit under Section 68
of the Income Tax Act Act, 1961. Issue was carried in appeal by the
assessee. CIT(Appeals) as well as tribunal ruled in favour of the
assessee.
With
the assistance of learned counsel for the Revenue,we have perused the
orders on record. We find that CIT(Appeals) as well as tribunal have
both upon appreciation of evidence on record come to the conclusion
that no case for treating the amount as unexplained cash credit is
made out. Tribunal in particular, noted that there was nothing on
record to suggest that transaction of share was sham or bogus or only
a paper transaction. CIT(Appeals) findings were approved on the basis
of documentary evidence. We do not find any infirmity in such
conclusion. Two authorities concurrently found that transaction was
genuine. No substantial question of law is raised for our
consideration.
Tax
Appeal is therefore, dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(Ms.
Sonia Gokani,J.)
(raghu)
Top