M/s Pooja Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 1016/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5155 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2018
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH GUPTA
• Keywords: Accommodation entries
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH , ! . .., # $, %& BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1016/CHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S POOJA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD., B-32, 1233/A, STREET NO.4, VILLAGE GHALEWAL, RAHON ROAD, LUDHIANA THE ITO, WARD-II(2), LUDHIANA ./PAN NO: AAACP9845P / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, CA ' ! / REVENUE BY : SH. ASHISH GUPTA, CIT DR # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 12.07.2018 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08. 10. 2018 %'/ ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2016 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)-1, LUDHIANA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS SHE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS. 4.00 CRORES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS SHARE APPLICATION / SHARE PREMIUM THROUGH M/S CASPER ENTERPRISES PVT LTD AND M/S VANGUARD JEWEL LTD MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO.1016 CHD/2016- M/S POOJA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, LUDHIANA 2 2. THAT SHE WAS FURTHER NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARIL Y UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,12,500/- RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS SHARE PREMIUM FROM M SHRI SURINDER KUMAR & SONS, SH. SHIV KUMAR & SONS AND SMT. DIVYA GUPTA ON THE GROUND THAT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE PERSONS WAS NOT PROVED. 3. GROUND NO.1 : THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 CRORES MADE INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT RECEIVED AS SHARE APPLICATION / S HARE PREMIUM FROM TWO COMPANIES NAMELY M/S CASPER ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD AN D M/S VANGUARD JEWEL LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE RECE IVED INFORMATION THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) [DGI T (INV.)], MUMBAI VIDE LETTER DATED 3.7.2014 THAT DURING THE SAID FIN ANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF RS. 2 CRORES EAC H FROM THE ABOVE NAMED TWO COMPANIES. THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE INFORM ATION WAS STATEMENT RECORDED OF ONE SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN DURING SEAR CH AND SURVEY OPERATION CARRIED OUT AT HIS GROUP ON 1.10.2013. D URING HIS STATEMENT RECORDED, THE SAID SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN ADMITTED TO THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES THAT HE WAS INDULGED IN PROVIDING ACCOM MODATION ENTRIES FOR COMMISSION TO VARIOUS PERSONS AND ENTITIES. THE AS SESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE AFORESAID TWO CONCERNS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WERE BEING CONTRO LLED BY SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT BOTH THE AFOR ESAID CONCERNS HAD SHOWN LOSSES DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR AND IT RAISED A DOUBT AS TO WHY THESE LOSS MAKING COMPANIES WOULD MAKE INVESTMENT OF SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ON BEING ASKED TO EXPLAIN IN THIS RESPECT, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOME FUTU RE BUSINESS PLANS AND IN ITA NO.1016 CHD/2016- M/S POOJA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, LUDHIANA 3 ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THOSE PLANS, A FAIR VALUE OF SH ARES WERE ASSESSED AT AND THE SHARES WERE ISSUE AT RS. 125 PER SHARE. THE AFORESAID COMPANIES APPLIED OF THE ALLOTMENT OF EQUITY SHARES AND THE A SSESSEE HAD ALLOTTED SHARES AS PER LAW AND ALL PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED TH ROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES / RTGS/NEFT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PROVIDED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS SUCH AS COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF THE AFORESAID COMPANI ES IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, COPIES OF SHARE LEDGER IN THE BOOKS OF T HE ASSESSEE, COPIES OF THE COMPANY MASTER DATA, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT, PAN NU MBER OF THE AFORESAID COMPANIES, LETTERS OF CONFIRMATION FROM THE AFORESAID COMPANIES, BALANCE SHEETS AND MEMORANDUM AND ARTIC LE OF ASSOCIATION OF THE AFORESAID COMPANIES AND FURTHER RESOLUTION PASS ED AT THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND COPIES OF CERTIFICATES OF INCORPORATION OF THE AFORESAID COMPANIES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS / INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE NOTED THAT ONE SHRI CHANDER SHEKHER GOYAL, BROKE R, IN HIS STATEMENT TO THE INVESTIGATION WING HAD STATED THAT ONE OF THE A FORESAID COMPANIES NAMELY M/S VANGUARD JEWEL LTD WAS CONTROLLED BY SHR I PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVEN SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN HAD ADMITTED THAT HE WAS INDULGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS / ACCOMMODA TION ENTRIES TO VARIOUS PERSONS. FURTHER, DURING THE SEARCH ACTION AT THE GROUP CONCERN OF SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN, STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI NILE SH PARMAR PROP. OF M/S MOHIT ENTERPRISES, ONE OF THE CONCERN ALLEGEDLY RUN BY SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR, WAS ALSO RECORDED AND IN HIS STATEMENT HE HA D STATED THAT HE WAS EMPLOYEE OF SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN AND THAT HE NAM ED 33 CONCERNS WHICH WERE CONTROLLED BY SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN FO R PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THAT THE AFORESAID TWO COMP ANIES NAMELY M/S ITA NO.1016 CHD/2016- M/S POOJA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, LUDHIANA 4 CASPER ENTERPRISES PVT LTD. AND M/S VANGUARD JEWEL LTD. ALSO AMONGST THOSE 33 COMPANIES. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ONE S HRI MANISH JAIN WAS THE DIRECTOR OF THE AFORESAID TWO CONCERNS AND THAT HE WAS RELATIVE OF SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE SHRI MANISH JAIN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BUT HE DID NOT PRODUCE HIM, HENCE, ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID R EPORT RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF RS. 2 CRORES WHIC H WAS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE, MADE ADDITIO N OF RS. 4 CRORES INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THE ASSESSEE UNSUCCESSFULLY CONTESTED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED ALL THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS SUCH AS COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF THE AFO RESAID COMPANIES IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE , COPIES OF SHARE LEDGER IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, COPIES OF THE COMPANY MASTER DATA, COPY OF BANK ST ATEMENT, PAN NUMBERS OF THE AFORESAID COMPANIES, LETTERS OF CONFIRMATION FROM THE AFORESAID COMPANIES, BALANCE SHEETS AND MEMORANDUM AND ARTIC LES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE AFORESAID COMPANIES AND FURTHER RESOLUTION P ASSED AT THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND COPIES OF CERTIFICATES OF INCORPORATION OF THE AFORESAID COMPANIES. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE OWN MONEY OR CASH HAS TRAVELLED FROM THE ASSESSEES TO T HE AFORESAID COMPANIES. THAT EVEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON FILE THAT THE AF ORESAID COMPANIES WHO HAD INVESTED IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE COMPANIES OF SHRI PARVEEN JAIN ITA NO.1016 CHD/2016- M/S POOJA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, LUDHIANA 5 AND THAT SHRI PARVEEN JAIN HAS NEVER STATED THAT HE HAD GIVEN ANY ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUN SEL HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID TWO COMPANIES ARE VALI DLY INCORPORATED COMPANIES AND THAT THE SHARES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSE E COMPANY ARE STILL STANDING IN THE NAME OF ABOVE TWO COMPANIES. THE LD . COUNSEL HAS FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS LETTER DATED 24.3.2015 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREB Y THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE ALLEGED STATEMEN T RECORDED BY INVESTIGATION WING AT MUMBAI, ADDITION SHOULD NOT B E MADE INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE OF CONFRONTING / CROSS EXAMINING THEM. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN DID NOT SUPPLY THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ANY PERSON INCLUDING THAT OF SHRI PARVEEN JAIN WHAT TO SAY OF GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINING THEM. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION HAVE BEEN MADE ONLY ON ASSUMPTION AND PRES UMPTION BASIS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON T HE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. CIT VS. STELLAR INVESTMENT LTD (1991) 1092 ITR 2 87 (DELHI H.C.) 2 CIT VS. STELLAR INVESTMENT LTD (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC) 3 CIT VS. DIVINE LEASING & FINANCE LTD (2007) 299 I TR 268 (DELHI H.C.) 4 CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS P. LTD (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) 5 CIT VS. GP INTERNATIONAL LTD (2010) 325 ITR 25 P B.& HARYANA H.C.) 6 CIT VS. REAL TIME MARKETING (P) LTD (2008) 306 I TR 35 (DELHI H.C.) 7 CIT VS. VALUE CAPITAL SERVICES (P) LTD (2008) 307 ITR 334 ((DELHI H.C.) 8 CIT VS. ORBITAL COMMUNICATION (P) LTD (2010) 327 ITR 560 (DELHI H.C.) 9 CIT V DWARKADHISH INVESTMENT (P) LTD (2010) 330 I TR ITA NO.1016 CHD/2016- M/S POOJA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, LUDHIANA 6 298 (DELHI) 10 CIT VS. WINSTRAL PETROCHEMICALS (P) LTD (2011) 3 30 ITR 603 (DELHI H.C.) 11 CIT VS. FAIR FINVEST LTD (2014) 357 ITR 146 (DEL HI H.C.) 12 CIT V GANESHWARI METAL P LTD (2014) 361 ITR 10 (DELHI H.C.) 13 COPY OF JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S LOUTS INTEGRATED TEXPAK LT D. 14 COPY OF JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE ITAT CHANDIGARH BEN CH IN THE CASE OF MANDI ALLOYS (P) LTD IN ITA NO. 222/CHANDI/2005 15 COPY OF JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE ITAT CHANDIGARH BEN CH IN THE CASE OF M/S A./P. REFINERY PVT LTD IN ITA N O. 572/CHANDI/2015 16 CIT V K.C. PIPES PVT. LTD (2016) 386 ITR 532 (PB & HARYANA HIGH COURT) 17 ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS. CIT [2015] 62 TAXMANN. COM 3 (SC) 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT FRO M THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF, SHRI PARVEEN JAIN, SHRI CHANDER SHEKHAR , BROKER AND SHRI NILESH PARMAR, EMPLOYEE OF SHRI PA RVEEN KUMAR JAIN, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE SHRI PARVEEN KUMA R JAIN AND GROUP CONCERN WERE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENT RIES. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES. HE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT NOT ONLY THE DIRECT EVIDENCE BUT SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTAN CES HAVE ALSO TO BE LOOKED INTO. THAT THE AFORESAID COMPANIES HAD NO RE ASON TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE, THEREFORE, RELYING UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAV E ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION. HE HAS SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE ITA NO.1016 CHD/2016- M/S POOJA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, LUDHIANA 7 STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMB AI DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI PARVEEN KU MAR JAIN, ONE SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN AND TWO PERSONS NAMELY SHRI CHAN DER SHEKHAR, BROKER AND SHRI NILESH PARMAR, ALLEGED EMPLOYEE OF SHRI PA RVEEN KUMAR JAIN. SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAS NOWHERE STATED THAT HE HAS GIVEN ANY ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE REVENUE COULD NOT ESTABLISH LINK BETWEEN THE AFORES AID TWO COMPANIES WHO HAD INVESTED IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH SHRI PARV EEN KUMAR JAIN EXCEPT FROM THE UNCORROBORATED STATEMENT OF A THIRD PARTY NAMELY NILESH PARMAR. WHAT HAS COME OUT FROM THE RECORD IS THAT ONE SHRI MANISH JAIN IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE AFORESAID COMPANIES. THOUGH, THE CA SE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE SAID MANISH JAIN IS RELATIVE OF SHRI PARVE EN KUMAR JAIN AND HAD ACTED ON BEHALF OF SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN BUT THER E IS NO EVIDENCE ON THE FILE TO ESTABLISHING THE AFORESAID LINK EXCEPT THE STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI NILESH PARMAR, ALLEGED EMPLOYEE OF SHRI PARVEEN KUM AR JAIN. THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY MADE REQUEST TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUPPLIED ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS FOR PROVIDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THAT IF ASSESSING OFFICER WANTS TO RELY ON ANY STATEMENT OF ANY PERSONS, THE ASSESSEE MUST BE ALLOWED TO CONFR ONT / CROSS EXAMINE HIM BUT THE AFORESAID REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEDED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN IT IS CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN SUPPLIED THE ALLEGED COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE AFORESAID PERSONS UPON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED UPON, TO WH ICH THERE IS NO REBUTTAL BY THE DEPARTMENT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THE FIL E THAT ANY CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE AFORESAID COMPANIE S BEFORE BEING ROUTED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THIS IS A CASE OF NO ITA NO.1016 CHD/2016- M/S POOJA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, LUDHIANA 8 INVESTIGATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT TO PL ACE RELIANCE ON CERTAIN STATEMENTS RECORDED OF SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN AND HIS ASSOCIATED PERSONS BY THE INVESTIGATION WING AT MUMBAI DURING THE SE ARCH ACTION CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI PARVEEAN KUMAR JAIN. HOWEV ER, IN THE SAID STATEMENTS, IT HAS BEEN GENERALLY STATED THAT SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN WAS INDULGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. HOWEVE R, NEITHER THERE IS ANY SPECIFIC ALLEGATION NOR ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE INVESTMENT OF AMOUNT INVESTED BY THE AFORESAID TWO COMPANIES NAMELY M/S CASPER ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD AND M/S VANGUARD JE WEL LTD. INTO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WAS A BOGUS TRANSACTION. THE ADDI TION IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTION WITHOUT BRINGI NG ANY RELIABLE EVIDENCE ON FILE THAT THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN THE AS SESSEE COMPANY WAS A RESULT OF ANY BOGUS TRANSACTION. 8. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS CASE LAWS OF THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES IN HIS FAVOUR TO CONTEND THAT THE ADDIT IONS ARE NOT WARRANTED IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, WITHOUT GOING TO THE LEGAL PREP OSITIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS CASE CAN BE DECIDED ON ITS FACTUAL A SPECTS AND AFTER APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE ON THE FILE. WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE NOT WARRANTED IN THIS CASE ON THE BASIS OF ASSU MPTIONS WITHOUT ANY RELIABLE EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT AFORESAID TRANSAC TIONS WERE NOT GENUINE. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION O N THE PART OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TREATING THE AFORESAID INVESTMENTS IN T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS BOGUS TRANSACTIONS. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE THEREFORE, ORDERED TO BE DELETED. GROUND NO.1 OF TH E APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. ITA NO.1016 CHD/2016- M/S POOJA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, LUDHIANA 9 9. GROUND NO. 2 - IN THIS GROUND THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON ACCOUNT O F SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED FROM THREE PERSONS NAMELY SH. SURINDER KUM AR & SONS (HUF), SHIV KUMAR & SONS (HUF) AND SMT. DIVYA GUPTA. THE A SSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, FURNISHED BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS OF THE AFORESAID THREE PE RSONS, COPIES OF THEIR INCOME-TAX RETURNS ALONGWITH PAN NUMBERS, COPIES OF SHARE APPLICATION FORMS AND COPIES OF SHARE ALLOTMENT LETTERS ALSO. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D ALSO ISSUED SHARES AT THE SAME RATE ALONG WITH SHARE PREMIUM EVEN TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE DIRECTORS. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY OBSERVATION REGARDING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE AFORESAID PERSONS. HOWEVER, HE HAS DISALLOWED THE SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE AFORESAID PERSONS OBSERVIN G THAT THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE AFORESAID PERSONS TO PAY SHARE PREMI UM FOR PURCHASING THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE HAS ALLOWED THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BUT DISALLOWED THE SHARE PREMIUM PART. AS OBS ERVED ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NEITHER MADE ANY INVESTIGATIO N NOR REBUTTED EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE H AS FURNISHED ALL THE REQUISITE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO P ROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. 10. WE FIND THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION. THE ADDITION MADE MERELY ON THE ASSUMP TION AND PRESUMPTION IS NOT TENABLE IN LAW ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROVING BY EVIDENCES OF THE GENUI NENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ALOTTEES. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO ITA NO.1016 CHD/2016- M/S POOJA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, LUDHIANA 10 NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION THE PART OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL ST ANDS ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.10.2018 SD/- SD/- ( ) * # +, / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 08. 10. 2018 .. '+ ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , % 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7$ / GUARD FILE '+ # / BY ORDER, 8 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR