COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RS CAPITAL SERVICES LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 1019/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocatew . versus . RS CAPITAL SERVICES LTD ..... Respondent Through None . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 03.08.2010 . Questioning the correctness of the order dated 29th June, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ?F?, New Delhi (for brevity ?tribunal?) in Appeal No. 2809/Del/2008 pertaining to the assessment year 2000- 2001, the present appeal has been filed. The singular question that has been focused by the Revenue in this appeal is that the assessee has not proven the identity and genuineness of the share applicants. . ITA 1019/2010 Page 1 of 3 . . . Be it noted, the Assessing Officer had framed an order of assessment against the assessee. Being dissatisfied, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ?CIT(A)] who allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal referred to the facts in entirety and the order passed by the CIT(A) in detail and thereafter in paragraph 15 of the order has come to hold that the assessee had produced the basic and primary evidences to prove the identity of the share holders and genuineness of the transaction. On a close scrutiny of the said paragraph, it is evincible that all transactions were made by way of cheques which were signed by the directors. It is submitted by Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for Revenue that the tribunal should not have concurred with the CIT(A) regard being had to the fact that the Assessing Officer had placed reliance on the statement of two persons, namely, Shri Gobind Ram Saini and Shri Sharique Kamal. The tribunal, as is evident, discarded . . ITA 1019/2010 Page 2 of 3 the statement on the ground the same was not relevant inasmuch as the share capital of Rs. 20,00,000/- each was received from the two companies, namely, M/s. Paras Fincap Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Prateek Securities Pvt. Ltd. and there was adequate evidence on record to support the same. In view of aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the concurrence of the tribunal with the order passed by the CIT(A) cannot be faulted. In the result, we do not conceive any error in the order passed by the tribunal and, accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Revenue stands dismissed in limine. . CHIEF JUSTICE . . . MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 03, 2010 rn . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA 1019/2010 Page 3 of 3 . . #22 $