IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 176/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT  ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. 
 Standing Counsel. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 GAPS POWER and INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD 
 . 
 ... Respondent 
 . 
 Through Nemo. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
     27.03.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 The Assessing Officer in paragraph 4 of the assessment order, which 
 relates to assessment year 2007-08, has recorded as under:- 
 . 
 ?4. In respect of share capital/share premium/share application money 
 provided by Parveen Nindrajog, Sumeet Nindrajog, and Amarjeet Singh 
 Chawla, the AR of the assessee company has submitted copies of their ITRs 
 and bank statement evidencing the transactions.  However, confirmation 
 from the parties in respect of having invested the above amount in the 
 assessee company have not been furnished.  In the absence of confirmation 
 from the parties, the identity of the parties who have invested the above 
 amount in the assessee company has not been established.  Moreover, the 
 genuineness of the transactions has also not been established as the 
 amount may have been received under some other head.  Thus, the assessee 
 has failed to furnish any explanation about the nature of credit in the 
 books of accounts.? 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 2. With regard to investment to the share capital by Hampton 
 Investment Group, the Assessing Officer noticed that the respondent- 
 assessee company had furnished copies of foreign investment remittance 
 certificates.  This as per the Assessing Officer was not sufficient to 
 establish the identity and credit worthiness of Hampton Investment Group. 
 This also according to the Assessing Officer did not show genuineness of 
 the transaction. 
 . 
 3. The Assessee filed an appeal and also moved an application for production of additional evidence under Rule 46A.  It was stated that the 
 additional evidence could not be submitted earlier as it was to be 
 submitted by foreign parties.  The CIT(Appeals) called for a remand 
 report.  In the remand report, it was stated that assessment proceedings 
 had continued for seven months and it was difficult for the Assessing 
 Officer to make enquiries in respect of confirmation issued by the 
 parties at Mumbai, Delhi and U.K. and, therefore, the Revenue could not 
 carry out the required verification.  The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the 
 appeal of the assessee. 
 . 
 4. On further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, an 
 order of remand has been passed and the Assessing officer has been asked 
 to take into consideration additional evidence and then go into the 
 question of identity, credit worthiness or financial strength of the 
 creditors/subscribers and genuineness of the transactions. 
 . 
 5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not 
 inclined to interfere with the order passed by the tribunal.  No 
 substantial question of law arises for consideration. 
 . 
 The appeal is dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V. EASWAR, J. 
 . 
 MARCH 27, 2012 
 . 
 VKR 
 . 
 $ 37. 
 .