Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 57]

Delhi High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Stellar Investment Ltd. on 16 April, 1991

Equivalent citations: [1991]72COMPCAS775(DELHI), [1991]192ITR287(DELHI)

Bench: B.N. Kirpal, D.K. Jain

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct both on facts and in law in holding that the provisions of section 263 have not been validly invoked in this case by ignoring the material fact that the Assessing Officer had failed to discharge his duties regarding the investigation with regard to the genuineness and creditworthiness of the shareholders, many of them being students and housewives ?"

2. In the present case, the subscribed capital of the assessed had been increased. The Income-tax Officer assessed the company and accepted the increase in the subscribed capital. The Commissioner of Income-tax came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer did not carry out a detailed investigation inasmuch as there had been a device of converting black money into white by issuing shares with the help of formation of an investment company. The Commissioner of Income-tax further held that the Assessing Officer did not make enquiries with regard to the genuineness of the subscribers of the share capital. He thereupon set aside the order of assessment.

3. The Tribunal reversed this decision for reasons which we need not go into.

4. It is evident that even if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, nevertheless, under no circumstances, can the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessed. It may be that there are some bogus shareholders in whose names share had been issued and the money may have been provided by some other persons. If the assessment of the persons who are alleged to have really advanced the money is sought to be reopened, that would have made some sense but we fail to understand as to how this amount of increased share capital can be assessed in the hands of the company itself.

5. In our opinion, no question of law arises and the petition is, therefore, dismissed.