COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II vs. MARUTI ALUMINIUM PVT LTD

TAXAP/330/2011 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 330 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA ======================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ======================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II - Appellant(s) Versus MARUTI ALUMINIUM PVT LTD - Opponent(s) ======================================================= Appearance : MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Opponent(s) : 1, ======================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA Date : 27/06/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) This Tax Appeal has been filed by the Revenue proposing the following

TAXAP/330/2011 2/2 JUDGMENT questions: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition u/s.68 of the Act?” 2. We have heard Ms. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue. Addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.23,50,000/- on account of unaccountable share application money has been added tot he income of the assessee. IN appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the additions on the ground that unless the identity of the depositors is established, till then share application money could not be treated to be income of the assessee. The Tribunal has affirmed the finding. We are of the opinion that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. (251 ITR 263) and CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (216 CTR 195), the Apex court has held that where the CIT established the identity of the persons who have invested in the shares, then such income could not be added in the income of the assessee. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is concluded finding of fact. Assuming that the share application money was taxed, even then the identity of the persons is identified by ration cards, election cards, etc. Therefore, the addition made by the assessing officer in the income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act is wholly unjustified. We do not find any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. This Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. (V.M. SAHAI, J.) (N.V. ANJARIA, J.) (SN DEVU PPS)