ORDER : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 14.5.2015 raising following questions for our consideration: "A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in quashing the assessment passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, when the two conditions viz. reason to believe and recording of reasons were fulfilled and Assessing Officer has duly applied his mind on the material furnished to him while recording his satisfaction? B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act on account of bogus share application and share premium money provided by Shri Mukesh Chokshi and his group companies, when it was proved that collusive transaction with M/s. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Buniyad Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. exists and the assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness of the transactions? C) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 21 lacs on the ground that cross examination was not granted ignoring the fact that the assessee has not asked for any cross examination during the course of assessment proceedings? D) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in holding that the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 21 lacs on the basis of bald statements of Shri Mukesh Chokshi and ignoring that Shri Mukesh Chokshi is an independent third party and 'investor' in the assessee company and the statement was recorded u/s. 134 supported by the documentary evidences and said statement was reconfirmed by him even after two years? E) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deleting the addition of Rs. 21 lacs when the primary conditions of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction were not proved and the primary onus cast upon the assessee was not discharged? F) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order of ITAT is not perverse in deleting addition of Rs. 21 lacs when the primary conditions of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction were not proved and the primary onus cast upon the assessee was not discharged? F) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order of ITAT is not perverse in deleting addition of Rs. 85 lacs by holding that the assessee has discharged its onus by proving identity (limited/listed company), genuineness (transactions through banking channel) and creditworthiness (IT returns and balance sheet with huge capital) ignoring the anomalies pointed out by CIT(Appeals)? G) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Hon'ble ITAT is not perverse in holding that no inquiry was done by the Assessing Officer, in the face of the fact that inquiries were carried out establishing at the Appellate stage (CIT Appeals) that a facade was created to give the whole transaction a colour of genuineness whereas the case of assessee does not stand the test of application of human probabilities?" 2. Essentially three questions are raised. First is with respect to reopening of assessment beyond a period of four years. The Tribunal recorded that the Assessing Officer only on the base of information supplied by the investigation wind at Mumbai that the assessee had received share application money from one of the tainted companies, issued notice. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer himself did not satisfy about the requirement and issued notice under section 148 of the Act without forming a reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. The Tribunal regardlessly proceeded to examine the issue on merits and deleted the addition of Rs. 21 lacs and further deleted addition of Rs. 85 lacs towards share application money. Upon perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal with the assistance of learned counsel for the Revenue, we are of the opinion that the issues raised are fundamentally questions of facts. The Tribunal having perused the facts on record come to the factual findings. No question of law arises. Under the circumstances quite apart from the validity of reopening, in our opinion, judgment does not require any further consideration. Tax Appeal is therefore, dismissed.