IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
         ITA 1019/2010  
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF 
 INCOME TAX                                 ..... Appellant 
 Through       Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocatew 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 RS CAPITAL SERVICES LTD          ..... Respondent 
 Through              None 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                     03.08.2010 
 . 
 Questioning the correctness of the order dated 29th June, 2009 passed by 
 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ?F?, New Delhi (for brevity 
 ?tribunal?) in Appeal No. 2809/Del/2008 pertaining to the assessment year 2000- 
 2001, the present appeal has been filed. 
 The singular question that has been focused by the Revenue in this appeal 
 is that the assessee has not proven the identity and genuineness of the share 
 applicants. 
 . 
 ITA 1019/2010 
 Page 1 of 3 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 Be it noted, the Assessing Officer had framed an order of assessment against the 
 assessee.  Being dissatisfied, the assessee preferred an appeal before the 
 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ?CIT(A)] who allowed the appeal. 
 Being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the tribunal.  The 
 tribunal referred to the facts in entirety and the order passed by the CIT(A) in 
 detail and thereafter in paragraph 15 of the order has come to hold that the 
 assessee had produced the basic and primary evidences to prove the identity of 
 the share holders and genuineness of the transaction. 
 On a close scrutiny of the said paragraph, it is evincible that all 
 transactions were made by way of cheques which were signed by the directors. 
 It is submitted by Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for Revenue that the 
 tribunal should not have concurred with the CIT(A) regard being had to the fact 
 that the Assessing Officer had placed reliance on the statement of two persons, 
 namely, Shri Gobind Ram Saini and  Shri Sharique Kamal.  The tribunal, as is 
 evident, discarded 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 1019/2010 
 Page 2 of 3 
 the statement on the ground the same was not relevant inasmuch as the share 
 capital of Rs. 20,00,000/- each was received from the two companies, namely, 
 M/s. Paras Fincap Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Prateek Securities Pvt. Ltd. and there was 
 adequate evidence on record to support the same. 
 In view of aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the concurrence 
 of the tribunal with the order passed by the CIT(A) cannot be faulted.  In the 
 result, we do not conceive any error in the order passed by the tribunal and, 
 accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Revenue stands dismissed in limine. 
 . 
 CHIEF JUSTICE 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 MANMOHAN, J 
 AUGUST 03, 2010 
 rn 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 1019/2010 
 Page 3 of 3 
 . 
 . 
 #22 
 $