ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Hi- Tech Accurate Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1125/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 112520114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Additional evidence; Accommodation entries
• Section: 68; 69; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1125/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 ITO, M/S HI TECH ACCURATE WARD-12 (4), COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI. V. PLOT NO.490, PATPARGANJ INDL. AREA, NEW DELHI. AND C.O. NO. 107/DEL/2012 IN I.T.A. NO.1125/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 M/S HI TECH ACCURATE ITO, COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD., WARD-12 (4), PATPARGANJ INDL. AREA, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. V. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AABCH AABCH AABCH AABCH- -- -0096=F 0096=F 0096=F 0096=F DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI UMESH CHANDER DUBEY, SR. DR APPELANT BY : SHRI G.N. GUPTA, ADVOCATE. ORDER PER TS KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A), XXVIII, NEW DELHI DATED 7.3.2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION TO THE APPEAL VIDE MEMORANDUM OF CROSS OBJE CTION. THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THEREFORE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY A ITA NO1125 & CO. 107/DEL/2012 2 COMMON ORDER. THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS TAKEN BY THE R EVENUE AND IN THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE AS UNDER:- I.T.A. 1125/DEL/2012 (DEPARTMENTS APPEAL): I.T.A. 1125/DEL/2012 (DEPARTMENTS APPEAL): I.T.A. 1125/DEL/2012 (DEPARTMENTS APPEAL): I.T.A. 1125/DEL/2012 (DEPARTMENTS APPEAL): 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F ` .21.42 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE FACTS THAT THE NOT ICES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDINGS WERE ATTEN DED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE DETAILS IN RESPONSE TO VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITI ONAL; EVIDENCES AS PER PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A (1) SINCE THIS IS NOT AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE. 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RELYING UPON THE DEC ISION IN THE CASE OF M/S LOVELY EXPORTS IGNORING THAT THE FACTS IN THE SAID CASE ARE ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT IN AS MUCH AS IN THIS CASE TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A PRIVATE COMPANY AND NO MEMBER OF THE PU BLIC PARTICIPATED. ITA NO1125 & CO. 107/DEL/2012 3 6. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT SINCE THE IDENTITY OF THE SUBSCRIBER HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED IT WILL BE IMPRA CTICAL AT THIS STAGE TO GO FOR OTHER TWO CRITERIA I.E. CREDITWO RTHINESS OF THE INVESTOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION BEING, NECE SSARY INGREDIENTS REQUIRED FOR INVOKING SECTION 68 OF THE I T ACT, 1961. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHILE ANALYZING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V., STELLAR INVESTMENT LTD. (2001) 251 ITR 26 3 (SC) HAS CLEARLY ENUNCIATED THAT ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS O F SECTION 658 (VIZ IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION) HAVE TO BE PROVED. 7. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN L AW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN STATING THAT NO OPPORTUNITY TO CR OSS EXAMINATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. T HE HON'BLE SC IN THE CASE OF STATE OF J&K V. BAKSHI GULA M MOHD. AIR 1967 (SC) 122 AND IN THE CASE OF NATH INTERNATIONAL SALES V. UOI AIR 1992 DEL 295 HAS HELD THAT THE RIGHT OF HEARING DOES NOT INCLUDE A RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINATION. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. C.O. NO. 107/DEL/2012 (ASSESSEES APPEAL): C.O. NO. 107/DEL/2012 (ASSESSEES APPEAL): C.O. NO. 107/DEL/2012 (ASSESSEES APPEAL): C.O. NO. 107/DEL/2012 (ASSESSEES APPEAL): 1. THE CIT(A)-XXVIII, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . ITA NO1125 & CO. 107/DEL/2012 4 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILE D A RETURN OF INCOME ON 31 ST OCTOBER, 2002 DECLARING INCOME OF ` .59,580/-.THE CASE WAS REOPEN VIDE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT A ND RE- ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT ` .22,01,580/- U/S 147/144 OF THE ACT AND THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS WERE MADE:- 1. ` .6,00,300/- ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION FROM DIT (INV .) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM ONE S/SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, SHREE RAM GARG AND SUSHILA DEVI GARG FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` .2,00,300/-, ` .2,00,000/- AND ` .2,M00,000/- RESPECTIVELY FROM THE ABOVE PERSONS. 2. ` .3,00,070/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RE CEIVED FROM FIVE PERSONS AS FOUND FROM THE REPLY FILED VIDE THIS LETTER DATED 27.11.2009. 3. ` .7,75,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASE IN UN-SECURED LOAN S FROM SHARE HOLDERS. 4. ` .3,99,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASE IN UN-SECURED LOAN S FROM DIRECTOR. 3. THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144 AS ACCORDING T O ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE DETAIL TO PROVE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF ALLEGED LENDERS DESP ITE MANY REQUEST. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) AND CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT BY TAKING ADDITIONAL GROUND. ITA NO1125 & CO. 107/DEL/2012 5 4. THE LD CIT(A) AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD AR ACCEPTED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, WHILE ADJUDICATING ON THIS GROUND, SHE DISMI SSED THE ADMITTED GROUND OF APPEAL. THE OPERATIVE PART OF CI T(A)S ORDER IN THIS REGARD IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACTED ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING SO THERE WAS A VALID GROUND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACT ON THE INFORMATION. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSUM ED JURISDICTION AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. 5. REGARDING MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LD AR SUBMITTED T HE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS:- I) THAT LOANS WERE RECEIVED BY APPELLANT THROUGH BANKIN G CHANNEL FROM DIRECTORS, THEIR WIVES AND PARENTS ONLY A ND THAT ALL ARE INCOME TAX PAYEES AND HAS BEEN FILING RETURNS SINCE LAST YEAR. II) THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDER IS DULY PROVED, THEY ARE INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND ALSO EITHER WORKING AS DIRECTOR OR ARE F ATHER OR MOTHER OR WIFE OF DIRECTOR. III) THAT CREDITWORTHINESS OF LENDER IS ALSO PROVED AS THEY H AD DECLARED SOURCE OF INCOME AND ARE FILING INCOME TAX RETURN. IV) THAT THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF LOAN AND HAD DEDUCTED TDS THEREON. 6. AFTER HEARING THE ARGUMENTS OF LD AR AND AFTER OB TAINING REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER GOING THROU GH THE ITA NO1125 & CO. 107/DEL/2012 6 JUSTIFICATION FILED BY THE LD. AR IN RESPECT OF GENUI NENESS, CREDITWORTHINESS OF VARIOUS LENDERS, THE LD CIT(A) DELE TED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF INCREASE IN UN-SECURED LOANS TO THE EXTENT OF ` .11,69,000/-. 7. REGARDING ADDITION OF ` .9,73,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED A S UNDER:- THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FURNI SHED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE SHARE CAPITAL BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT HAD FURTHER REQUESTED THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECO RDED ANY STATEMENT AND THERE WAS ADVERSE MATERIAL HE MAY BE PRO VIDED RELEVANT DETAILS AND RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE CONCERNED PARTIES. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED DE TAILS IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS REFERRED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REMAND REPORT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER NEITHER EXAMINED THEM NOR OFFERED HIS COMMEN TS ON THE SAME. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A LIST OF THE SHARE HOLDE RS AND ALSO VARIOUS DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF SHARE CAPITAL INCLUDING ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS AND PAN. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DIVINE LEASING AND FINANCE LIMI TED (2007) 158 TAXMAN 440) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE RELEVAN T DETAILS OF THE ADDRESS OR PAN IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR ARE FURNI SHED TO THE DEPARTMENT IT WOULD CONSTITUTE ACCEPTABLE PROOF OR A CCEPTABLE EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE THE SHARE APPLIC ANTS EXISTENCE IS RECOGNIZED AS THE COMPANY IS IN THE RECOR DS OF THE IT DEPARTMENT, SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THEIR PA N AND ALSO COPIES OF INCOME TAX RECORDS. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN ITA NO1125 & CO. 107/DEL/2012 7 THE CASE OF CIT V. LOVELY EXPORTS PVT. LIMITED 116 CT R 185 IN ITS ORDER DATED 11.01.2008 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- CAN THE AMOUNT OF SHARE MONEY BE REGARDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FOR THE SIMPLE RE ASON THAT IF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHARE HOLDERS WHOSE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PROCEED TO REOPEN THEIR INDIVI DUAL ASSESSMENTS ACCORDING WITH LAW. HENCE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY WITH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. V ALUE CAPITAL SERVICE PVT. LTD. 307 ITR 334 HAS HELD THAT EVEN IF THE SHARE APPLICANT DID NOT HAVE THE SOURCES TO MAKE THE INVESTM ENT THE ONUS IS ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT SUCH INVESTMENT IS EMANATED FROM THE COFFERS OF THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ENABNLE IT TO BE TREATED AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. REL YING ON THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD AND THE PRINCI PLE LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SC IN THE CASE OF M/S LOVELY EXPO RTS PVT. LTD. WHICH IS DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL, T HE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NO WHERE PROVED THAT DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE HOLDERS HAVE NOT BEEN PLACED ON RECORD AND THEY WERE FORGED DOCUMENTS. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSIONS M ADE ABOVE THE ADDITION OF ` .9,73,000/- IS DELETED. 8. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ABO VE DELETIONS OF ` .21,42,000/- BEING ` .11,69,000/- UNSECURED LOANS AND ` .9,73,000/- ITA NO1125 & CO. 107/DEL/2012 8 SHARE CAPITAL AND ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION IN SO F AR AS ON THE POINT THAT LD CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSING O FFICER HAS RIGHTLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961. 9. THE LD AR ARGUED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT APPL IED HIS MIND WHILE ISSUING NOTICE U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. IN THIS R ESPECT HE TOOK US TO PAGE 2 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN HE INVITED OUR A TTENTION TO DATE OF ENTRY WITH RESPECT TO FIRST ENTRY WHICH WAS DATED 2 6 TH MARCH, 2001 AND WHICH HE ARGUED RELATED TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND NOT 2002-03. 10. THE LD AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO B ANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK OR JAI LAKSHMI BANK. HE AL SO TOOK US TO PAGE 177 OF PAPER BOOK WHERE BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2002 WAS PLACED. HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO TH E FACT THAT THERE WAS NET INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL TO THE EXTENT OF ` .5.70,000/- ONLY AND NOT ` .9,73,000/- AS ALLEGED AND ADDED BACK BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT, LD AR ARGUED THAT NOTICE S U/S 147/148 WERE ISSUED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND THEREFORE ENTI RE RE-ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. 11. THE LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) REGA RDING REOPENING OF THE CASE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAD ADMITTED ADDITIONAL GROUND O F APPEAL ON THE REQUEST OF ASSESSEE AND SHE HAS EXTENSIVELY DEALT WITH THIS MATTER REGARDING POWERS AND LIMITATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER WI TH RESPECT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT. THOUGH ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD ITA NO1125 & CO. 107/DEL/2012 9 MADE 2-3 MISTAKES WHILE FRAMING RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER YET, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT MATERIAL BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR INITIAT ION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148. THE REPORT OF DIT (INV.) IS A PRIMARY SOU RCE OF EVIDENCE FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY INITIATED RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFO RE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE DECISION OF LD CIT( A). HENCE, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 13. NOW REGARDING DEPARTMENTS APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO DELETIONS MADE BY LD CIT(A). THE LD DR ARGUED THAT DESPITE VA RIOUS REQUESTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED DOCUMENTS WITH ASSESSING OFFICER, THE REFORE, LD CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED B Y THE NOVA PROMOTERS REPORTED IN 342 ITR 169, AND THEREFORE HE ARGUED THAT ORDER OF LD CIT(A) BE REVERSED AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER BE UPHELD. 14. THE LD AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARGUED THAT IN TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF LD CIT(A) DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WAN TS SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/DOCUMENT HE CAN CALL IT AS PER PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A. THEREFORE, LD CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY ACCEPTED THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED ONLY AFTER CALLING REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REGARDING MER ITS OF THE CASE THE LD AR ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ONLY ` .5,70,000/- AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION OF ` .9,73,000/-. HE TOOK US TO PAGE 177 OF PAPER BOOK WH ERE HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE DIFFE RENCE BETWEEN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF 31.3.2001 AND 31.1.2002 IS ONLY ` .5,70,000/- AND NOT ` .9,73,000/-. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT ALL AMOUNTS OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WERE RECEIVED THROUGH A/C PAYEE CHEQUES AND IN VITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 5-31 OF PAPER BOOK WHEREIN COPIE S OF AFFIDAVITS, ITA NO1125 & CO. 107/DEL/2012 10 APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR SHARES, COPIES OF CHEQUES ISSUED B Y APPLICANT AND COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT OF APPLICANT WERE PLACED. 15. REGARDING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF FRESH UN-SECURED LOANS, THE LD AR ARGUED THAT DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS EACH AND EVERY DETAIL INCLUDING PAN NUMBER, COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURNS A ND COPIES OF PASS BOOK SHOWING TRANSACTIONS WERE FILED WITH LD CIT(A). HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT LOANS WERE TAKEN FROM DIRECTORS AND THEIR CLOSE R ELATIVES ONLY AND INTEREST ON LOANS WERE PROVIDED AFTER DEDUCTION OF TA X THEREON. IN THIS RESPECT HE TOOK US TO PAGE 32 OF PAPER BOOK, WHERE CO NSOLIDATED CHART OF UN-SECURED LOANS ALONG WITH THEIR ADDRESSES, PAN NUM BERS ETC. WERE PLACED. HE ALSO TOOK US TO PAGES 33 TO 81 OF PAPER BO OK WHEREIN SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUCH AS INCOME TAX RETURNS, COPIES O F PASS BOOK OF LENDERS WERE PLACED. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE VARIOUS ARGUMENTS OF LD AR AND FROM RELEVANT PAGES OF PAPER B OOK, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED HIS PART OF DUTY AS HE HAD PRO VED BEFORE LD CIT(A) ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS VIZ IDENTITY OF LENDERS, CREDITWORTHINESS OF LENDERS/SHARE HOLDERS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF NOV A PROMOTERS REPORTED IN 342 ITR 169 AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD DR CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE AS IN THE CASE OF NOVA PROMOTERS (SUPRA). T HERE WERE STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM PERSONS CONFIRMING THE FACTS TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. IN THE PRE SENT CASE NO STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED AND IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS, IDEN TITY OF INVESTORS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF INVESTORS. IN VIEW OF T HIS, WE ARE OF ITA NO1125 & CO. 107/DEL/2012 11 THE OPINION THAT LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE A DDITION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CRO SS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 18. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE IST DA Y OF JUNE, 2012. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (T.S. KAP OOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT.1.6.2012. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING 3.5.2012 DATE OF DICTATION 28.5.2012 DATE OF TYPING 28.5.2012 DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY BOTH THE MEMBERS & 1.6.2012 ITA NO1125 & CO. 107/DEL/2012 12 PRONOUNCEMENT. DATE OF ORDER SENT TO THE BENCH CONCERNED. 1.6.2012