CIT vs. GAPS POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . . . ITA 176/2012 . . . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. . . . versus . . . GAPS POWER and INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD . ... Respondent . Through Nemo. . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 27.03.2012 . . . The Assessing Officer in paragraph 4 of the assessment order, which relates to assessment year 2007-08, has recorded as under:- . ?4. In respect of share capital/share premium/share application money provided by Parveen Nindrajog, Sumeet Nindrajog, and Amarjeet Singh Chawla, the AR of the assessee company has submitted copies of their ITRs and bank statement evidencing the transactions. However, confirmation from the parties in respect of having invested the above amount in the assessee company have not been furnished. In the absence of confirmation from the parties, the identity of the parties who have invested the above amount in the assessee company has not been established. Moreover, the genuineness of the transactions has also not been established as the amount may have been received under some other head. Thus, the assessee has failed to furnish any explanation about the nature of credit in the books of accounts.? . . . 2. With regard to investment to the share capital by Hampton Investment Group, the Assessing Officer noticed that the respondent- assessee company had furnished copies of foreign investment remittance certificates. This as per the Assessing Officer was not sufficient to establish the identity and credit worthiness of Hampton Investment Group. This also according to the Assessing Officer did not show genuineness of the transaction. . 3. The Assessee filed an appeal and also moved an application for production of additional evidence under Rule 46A. It was stated that the additional evidence could not be submitted earlier as it was to be submitted by foreign parties. The CIT(Appeals) called for a remand report. In the remand report, it was stated that assessment proceedings had continued for seven months and it was difficult for the Assessing Officer to make enquiries in respect of confirmation issued by the parties at Mumbai, Delhi and U.K. and, therefore, the Revenue could not carry out the required verification. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. . 4. On further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, an order of remand has been passed and the Assessing officer has been asked to take into consideration additional evidence and then go into the question of identity, credit worthiness or financial strength of the creditors/subscribers and genuineness of the transactions. . 5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the tribunal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. . The appeal is dismissed. . . . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J. . . . . . . . R.V. EASWAR, J. . MARCH 27, 2012 . VKR . $ 37. .