IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 212/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT             ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 GOEL SONS GOLDEN ESTATE PVT LTD  ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through: None. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
       11.04.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 The Revenue by this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax 
 Act, 1961 (?Act?, for short) impugns the order dated 05.08.2011 passed by 
 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (?Tribunal?, for short) in the case of 
 Goel Estate Sons Pvt. Ltd. in relation to assessment year 2006-07. 
 . 
 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by 
 the Tribunal is perverse and in fact one S.H. Mallick had given a 
 statement, which is re-produced in the assessment order saying that he 
 had provided accommodation entries and the said statement conclusively 
 proves that share money of ` 30,00,000/- allegedly received by the 
 respondent-assessee from 5 companies are sham and bogus transactions. 
 . 
 3. We have examined the said contention and find that the assessee 
 during the course of assessment proceedings has filed confirmation 
 letters from the companies, their PAN number, copy of bank statements, 
 affidavits  and balance sheet.  Thereafter the Assessing Officer had 
 asked the assessee to produce the said Directors/ parties.  Assessee 
 expressed its inability to produce them.  The Assessing Officer did not 
 consequent thereto conduct any inquiry and closed the proceedings.  This 
 is a case where the Assessing Officer has failed to conduct necessary 
 inquiry, verification and deal with the matter in depth specially after 
 the affidavit/confirmation along with the bank statements etc. were 
 filed.  In case the Assessing Officer had conducted the said enquiries 
 and investigation probably the challenge made by the Revenue would be 
 justified.  In the absence of these inquiries and non-verification of the 
 details at the time of assessment proceedings, the factual findings 
 recorded by the Assessing Officer were incomplete and sparse.  The 
 impugned order passed cannot be treated and regarded as perverse.  The 
 appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law arises. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 APRIL    11, 2012 
 . 
 hs 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 2 
 .