- (1.) No question of any significance is raised in this appeal and questions of fact conclusively dealt with by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have been sought to be raked up on the ground of perversity. The questions sought to be framed are as follows: "(a) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the addition of share capital of Rs. 46,72,000/- in the hands of the appellant under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and its purported findings that the transactions were not genuine or satisfactorily explained and upholding the said addition are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse? (b) Whether the Tribunal in upholding the said addition proceeded on surmise and conjecture, ignored the relevant materials and took into consideration irrelevant and/or extraneous materials rendering its findings arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?"
(2.) The facts have been succinctly recorded in the order of the Appellate Tribunal impugned herein passed on January 15, 2016. The appellant filed its return on October 18, 2002 declaring a total loss of Rs. 12,670/- and the assessing officer found an increase in share capital to the extent of Rs. 46,72,000/- and added the same as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal recorded that the addresses of most of the purported shareholders were identical and they could not be traced out despite notices issued under Section 131 of the Act. Two proprietorship concerns by the names of D.R.Brijmohan & Co. and D.R. Distributors, owned by one Tarun Kumar Agarwala and his wife, Madhu Devi Agarwala, were found to have made the payments to the assessee company. Tarun Kumar Agarwala is a director of the assessee company and appears to be the principal person in control thereof. Even such proprietorship concerns of the principal person in control of the assessee company and his wife did not produce their books of accounts or documents.
(3.) The appellant relies on some of the documents which had been referred to in course of the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and before the Tribunal. In one of the documents, which appears at page 97 of the present appeal papers, the names of the 21 purported shareholders have been indicated and the original addresses of such applicants for shares in the assessee company are also indicated. Thirteen of the 21 persons had a common address of 20, Mango Lane, four of them had a common address of 7A, Bentinck Street and three others had a common address of P 25, Princep Street. It is difficult to miss that these addresses are in and around 7A, Bentinck Street, which is the registered office of the appellant assessee, if not at the same address. The appellant emphasises that the GIR details of the 21 applicants were indicated to the department and it was for the department to find out whether such persons existed since all but two of the 21 applicants had individual income tax files.;