HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 565/2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur(Raj) Appellant Versus M/s Bharti Syntex Ltd., (Formerly Known As Puchi Investments Ltd., 148, Kashipuri, Gangapur District Bhilwara. Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargeiya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 24/07/2017 By way of this appeal, appellant has assailed judgment and order of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has allowed appeal preferred by assessee modifying order of AO and CIT(A). This Court while admitting matter framed following questions of law:- i) Whether Tribunal was justified in allowing appeal filed by assessee thereby justified in reversing order of CIT(A). ii) Whether Tribunal was justified in reversing such finding by holding transaction to be genuine without giving any categorical finding as to how and on what basis finding recorded by CIT(A) on this issue is bad either on facts of in law? (2 of 3) [ITA-565/2011] iii) In absence of any categorical finding recorded by Tribunal which was necessary for reversal of finding of CIT(A) whether reasoning and conclusion arrived at by Tribunal holding transaction to be genuine in relation to share application money is factually and legally sustainable. iv) In event of question Nos. 2 and 3 being answered in affirmative, whether case for remand to decide appeal afresh on merits is made out? Counsel for appellant contended that Tribunal has seriously committed error in allowing appeal inasmuch as share application which was received was contrary to provision of Companies Act and three persons who issued applications were named in para 7 and AO while observing has looked into detail of confirmation of M/s Bharti Syntex Ltd. In that view of matter, he contended that order of CIT(A) and AO is required to be restored. Counsel for respondent contended in view of following decisions:- 1. CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), (2) CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del) 3. CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd. 251 ITR 263 or 164 CTR 287 (SC) 4. CIT vs. AKJ Granite P. Ltd. 301 ITR 298 or 212 CTR 25 (Raj.) 5. Barkha Synthetics Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2006) 283 ITR 377 (Raj.) We have heard counsel for both sides. In view of decision of Lovely Exports (supra), view taken by Tribunal is just and proper. No interference is called (3 of 3) [ITA-565/2011] for. All issues are required to be answered in favour of assessee against department. appeal stands dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma 75 Commissioner of Income-tax Central, Jaipur v. Bharti Syntex Ltd., (Formerly Known As Puchi Investments Ltd.)