Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Stellar Investment Ltd.
1991 Latest Caselaw 307 Del

Citation : 1991 Latest Caselaw 307 Del
Judgement Date : 16 April, 1991

Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Stellar Investment Ltd. on 16 April, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1991 72 CompCas 775 Delhi, 1991 192 ITR 287 Delhi
Bench: B Kirpal, D Jain

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct both on facts and in law in holding that the provisions of section 263 have not been validly invoked in this case by ignoring the material fact that the Assessing Officer had failed to discharge his duties regarding the investigation with regard to the genuineness and creditworthiness of the shareholders, many of them being students and housewives ?"

2. In the present case, the subscribed capital of the assessed had been increased. The Income-tax Officer assessed the company and accepted the increase in the subscribed capital. The Commissioner of Income-tax came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer did not carry out a detailed investigation inasmuch as there had been a device of converting black money into white by issuing shares with the help of formation of an investment company. The Commissioner of Income-tax further held that the Assessing Officer did not make enquiries with regard to the genuineness of the subscribers of the share capital. He thereupon set aside the order of assessment.

3. The Tribunal reversed this decision for reasons which we need not go into.

4. It is evident that even if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, nevertheless, under no circumstances, can the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessed. It may be that there are some bogus shareholders in whose names share had been issued and the money may have been provided by some other persons. If the assessment of the persons who are alleged to have really advanced the money is sought to be reopened, that would have made some sense but we fail to understand as to how this amount of increased share capital can be assessed in the hands of the company itself.

5. In our opinion, no question of law arises and the petition is, therefore, dismissed.

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter