CIT Vs. MIQ STEELS (P.) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed under section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dt. 19 -6 -2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut had proposed the following substantial question of law said to be arising out of the order of the Tribunal: - -been shown can be accepted as 'person' under the IT Act and the share capital introduced by such persons under the garb of share capital money can be accepted?

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: - The appeal relates to the assessment year 2005 -06. During the assessment year in question, an addition of Rs. 24,50,000 on account of share application money received from the shareholders has been made by the Assessing Authority on the ground that the respondent assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the shareholders. The Assessing Officer has found that the shareholders have shown low income in the income tax returns which was much less compared to investment in share capital. In Appeal, the CIT deleted the observation that in case of capital contributed by a shareholder, the identity of the shareholder is only required to be proved. While holding so, the Commissioner of Income Tax relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. : (2001) 251 ITR 263 and also CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd., (2009) 319 ITR 5(SC) : : (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). The appeal preferred by the Revenue before the Tribunal failed.

(3.) WE have heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and have perused the three orders passed by the authorities, including that by the Tribunal and find that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steller Investment Ltd. (supra). That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity.