PRAKASH KRISHNA AND RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), JJ. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed against the order dated 27th July, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F', New Delhi in ITA No.4772/Del/2009 for the Assessment Year 2006 -07. In the memo of appeal the following substantial questions of law have been proposed. (I) Whether the ITAT was justified in ignoring the fact that the assessee had not discharged his onus of proving the creditworthiness, identity and genuineness of transaction as all these conditions prescribed u/s 68 are to be discharged by the assessee? (II) Whether the ITAT was justified in ignoring the facts of the case before following the judgment of Lovely Exports, in as much as, there is a specific finding by the A.O. That a common introducer operated and opened accounts in the same branch where money was deposited and later on a cheque was issued in favour of the assessee and where all the applicants were petty businessman who could not have made investments of such magnitude? (III) Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in confirming the order of CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs.40 lakh made u/s.68 of I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that despite specific notice issued u/s 142(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 on 08.12.2008 the assessee company had failed to produce the creditors/share -applicants before the A.O. for verification of their identity credit -worthiness and genuineness of transactions? (IV) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in confirming the order of CIT (A) ignoring the fact that the facts of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (216 -CTR -195) are quite distinguishable to the facts of the present case as the assessee company has failed to produce the creditors/share -applicants and therefore, their identity is not verifiable in the present case? (V) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in confirming the order of CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs.40 lakh made u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961 out of total share capital money of Rs.1.4 crore ignoring the fact that the assessee company has failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants/creditors and by ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of Chhatisgarh in the case of Kushal Prasad Manhar Vs. CIT (2010) 236 -CTR -192) without appreciating the full facts of the present case?" Heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the Department.
(2.) THE Assessing Officer in the assessment year in question made certain additions under Section 68 of the Income -tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", in the income of the assessee -respondent. The case of the assesee -respondent was that the deposits were received towards share application money for allotment of shares by the investors. The Assessing Officer took the view that since the assessee has failed to discharge the burden as laid under Section 68 of the Act credit entries were not duly explained. The order of the Assessing Officer has been set aside in appeal by the first Appellate Authority and the order of the first Appellate Authority has been confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has followed the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (216 - CTR -195). Following the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, this Court has held in numerous cases that addition under Section 68 of the Act in such cases is not called for. We do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed summarily.;