IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
         ITA 145/2010  
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                                 ..... Appellant 
 Through :        Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal 
 versus 
 VV INDUSTRIAL PROCESSORS PVT LTD              ..... Respondent 
 Through :        None 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED 
 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL 
 O R D E R 
                                      25.02.2010 
 This appeal is in respect of the assessment year 2002-2003 and arises out 
 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal?s order dated 22.05.2009 in ITA 
 3728/Del/2008. 
 The only issue sought to be raised by the revenue is with regard to the 
 deletion of the addition in respect of the share application money to the extent 
 of Rs?81,40,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 
 . 
 . 
 The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs 88,40,000/- under the said 
 Section 68 after treating the share application money received by the assessee 
 as accommodation entries.  The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly 
 allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee on this aspect of the matter, 
 inasmuch as the addition of Rs 88,40,000/- was limited to only Rs 7 lacs on 
 account of the fact that the share application money apparently received from 
 Amba Alloys Private Limited was considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax 
 (Appeals) to be unexplained.  This was because the notice sent by the Assessing 
 Officer to Amba Alloys Private Limited was returned unserved.  Furthermore, no 
 confirmation had been filed by the assessee in respect of the said Amba Alloys 
 Private Limited.  Consequently, the sum of Rs 7 lacs said to have been received 
 from Amba Alloys Private Limited towards share application money was treated as 
 unexplained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the addition to that 
 extent was sustained.  However, in respect of the share application money to the 
 extent of Rs 81,40,000/- received from other parties, the Commissioner of Income 
 Tax (Appeals) deleted the said addition because of the fact that the assessee 
 had filed confirmation letters from them and that notices issued to them had 
 been served and the parties had also replied to the same confirming the making 
 of the payments towards share application money. The Commissioner of Income Tax 
 (Appeals), therefore, found that the onus, which was on the assessee, stood 
 discharged.  The identity of the subscribers was established and they had also 
 confirmed having made the payments.  In view of the foregoing, the Commissioner 
 of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition to the extent of Rs?81,40,000/-. 
 These findings of fact were confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 
 by virtue of the impugned order.  No substantial question of law arises for our 
 consideration. 
 The appeal is dismissed. 
 BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 
 . 
 . 
 FEBRUARY 25, 2010                                SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J 
 SR 
 . 
 . 
 .