IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  27.05.2011 
.
 Present:        Mr.Sanjeev Sabahrwal, Advocate for the appellant. 
.
 +ITA No.777/2011 
.
 The addition of `30.00 lakhs as unexplained income under Section 
 68 of the Income Tax Act has been deleted by the CIT(A), which order is 
 confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).  The addition was 
 made on the sale of shares and according to the Assessing Officer, the 
 assessee had failed to discharge its onus by not showing the identity, 
 credit-worthiness and genuineness of the persons from whom the amount was 
 received.  The CIT(A) allowed the appeal holding that there was 
 sufficient evidence on record to come to the conclusion that various 
 amount represented sale proceeds and all the buyers were assessed to tax 
 and filed various documents to prove that they had automatically made 
 purchases of shares and accordingly the addition was deleted.  The ITAT 
 while confirming this finding of the CIT(A) has observed as under: 
 ?5.       We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made 
 before us.  The facts are that the assessee had shown investment in the 
 shares of K.V. Finelease Securities (P) Ltd.   In the annual accounts for 
 the period ended on 31.03.2001.  It showed the sale of shares in this 
 year.  Out of six companies, to whom shares were sold, Maestro Marketing 
 and Advertising (P) Ltd. attended through direction and filed various 
.
.
 details.  Elaborate evidence was filed in respect of other parties to 
 establish their existence 
.
.
 ITA No.777/2011 
 Page 1 of 2 
 and receipt of sale proceeds through banking channels.  The Assessing 
 Officer did not verify the evidence submitted by the assessee.  The 
 purchase in earlier year has not been doubted.  As in the case of Vishal 
 Holding and Capital (P) Ltd., he proceeded to make assessment on the 
 basis of information received from the Investigation Wing without 
 verifying the details furnished by the assessee.  Therefore, the ratio of 
 that case is applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly, we are of 
 the view that the learned CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition on 
 proper appreciation of evidence filed by the assessee.? 
.
 No question of law arises and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 
.
.
 A.K. SIKRI, J. 
.
.
.
.
 MAY 27, 2011 
 M.L. MEHTA, J. 
 Dev 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ITA No.777/2011 
 Page 2 of 2 
.
.
 #2