JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.11.2005 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' in ITA No. 1948/Ahd/2005 : Assessment Year : 1994-95 wherein the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (Appeals). 2. While admitting the matter on 11.12.2006, the following substantial question of law were framed by the Court for consideration:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the law as stated by the Tribunal in regard to the onus on the company in respect of share application money is correctly stated?" 3. The brief facts of the case are as under:- The appellant is a company engaged in the business of fabrication and erection of transmission towers. One of the shareholders - Smt. Manjulaben Dalwadi of Nadiad applied for shares of the company and the appellant received Rs. 5,00,000/- towards share application money on different dates. According to the Assessing Officer, this source of Rs. 5,00,000/- could not be explained by Smt. Manjulaben and therefore, addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made in the hands of the appellant u/s. 68. The matter was decided in favour of the appellant by the CIT (A), but on a second appeal the ITAT set aside the issue. The Assessing Officer was given an opportunity as directed by the ITAT. The said Smt. Manujalben also filed a confirmation letter confirming that she had paid by cheque the above amount to the company towards shares and she also stated that her husband was a businessman who expired in the year 1986 leaving the business funds and income. It is the case of the company that the Tribunal approached the matter as if this was a case of cash credit under Section 68 as distinguished from the share application money from a person whose identity is established and held that onus under section 68 is not discharged. Being aggrieved with the order dated 29.11.2005 of the Tribunal as stated hereinabove, the above Appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Being aggrieved with the order dated 29.11.2005 of the Tribunal as stated hereinabove, the above Appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Manish J. Shah has taken this Court to the facts of the case and has submitted that the Income Tax Tribunal has wrongly exercised its powers as stated in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. reported in (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195 which reads as under:- "Delay condoned. 2. Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under s.68 of the IT Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law. Hence, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment. 3. Subject to the above, Special Leave Petition is dismissed." It is further submitted that the above principle has been followed by this Court in various decisions and therefore, the question in this Appeal is required to be answered in favour of the Assessee. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. K.M. Parikh has drawn the attention of the Court to the findings of the CIT (Appeals) and also of the Income Tax Tribunal and has contended that no interference is called for by this Court in the facts of the case and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the records of the case. 6. We have heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the records of the case. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Income Tax v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (supra) has been followed consistently by this Court in various decisions as detailed herein above:- (a) Hindustan Inks & Resins Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income reported in (2011) 60 DTR (Guj) 18; (b) Commissioner of Income-tax-IV v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. reported in (2013) 34 taxmann.com 177 (Gujarat); (c) Commissioner of Income Tax Gandhinagar v. Bhavana Property Developers Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 1039/2009 dated 11.01.2011; (d) The Commissioner of Income Tax - I v. M/s. Guptex Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 1309/2010 dated 14.09.2011; (e) Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Nilchem Capital Ltd. in Tax Appeal Nos. 2087/2009 with 2088/2009 dated 14.11.2011; (f) Commissioner of Income Tax - IV v. Satyendra Traders Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 692/2010 dated 04.10.2011; (g) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava in Tax Appeal No. 50/2011 dated 20.03.2012; (h) Commissioner of Income Tax - I v. Belgium Glass & Ceramics (P) Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 442/2011 dated 13.06.2012; (i) The Commissioner of Income Tax II v. Maruti Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 330/2011 dated 27.06.2012; (j) Commissioner of Income Tax - II v. Gay Lord Industries Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 1426/2011 dated 27.06.2012. It is also necessary to refer to reproduce hereunder paragraph 9 of the decision of this Court in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Tarujyot Investment Ltd. rendered in Tax Appeal No. 457/1999 dated 09.08.2010 which reads as under:- "9. Thus, from the facts emerging on record, it is apparent that during the period immediately after its incorporation the assessee company had practically done no business so as to generate income of Rs. 50 Lakhs. The Assessing Officer on inquiry has found many of the alleged shareholders to be benamidars or having not invested the money, but at the same time, he has traced out the source of money to some specific persons, who were the real investors. 50 Lakhs. The Assessing Officer on inquiry has found many of the alleged shareholders to be benamidars or having not invested the money, but at the same time, he has traced out the source of money to some specific persons, who were the real investors. The Supreme Court has in the case of Commissioner of Income - tax v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (supra), held that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen the individual assessments in accordance with law. Such amounts cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of the assessee company. Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, the Assessing Officer having traced out the source of funds to specific persons who had invested the same in share of the assessee company, it was open for the Assessing Officer to proceed against the said persons. The funds not having emanated from the assessee company, there was no warrant for making addition of the said amount as undisclosed income under section 68 of the act in its hands. In the circumstances, the tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. The question stands answered accordingly, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue." 7. Considering the law laid down in the above decisions and in the facts of the case, we answer the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Department.