M/s Gala Finance and Investment Ltd., Ludhiana V. ITO, W-VII(1), Ludhiana

ITA 1170/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6073 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-04-2018
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Source of fund; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 68; 148; 132

Judgement Text

, A, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO NO.1170/CHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S. GALA FINANCE AND INVESTMENT LTD, SCO-19, MASTER CHAMBER, FEROZE GANDHI MARKET, LUDHIANA. VS. ITO, WARD - VII ( 1 ), LUDHIANA. ./PAN NO.: AABCG 9655R /APPELLANT /RESP ONDENT ! ' /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, CA $ ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, SR.D.R. ' ! /DATE OF HEARING: 25/10/2018 ' ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 /01/2019 / ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA (IN S HORT CIT(A) DATED 31.5.2017 PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX AT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). 2. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: 1. THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESORTING TO PROVISIONS OF SEC.148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABOVE GROUND HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSE SSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUANCE OF N OTICE U/S 148 PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US AT PAGES 18 TO 20 AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASST T. YEAR 2010-11 ON 15-10-2010 DECLARING ITS INCOME AT NIL. THE UNDERSIGNED IS IN POSSESSION OF INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE, M/S GALA FINANCE AND INVESTMENT LTD. SCO 19 MASTER CHAMBERS, LUDHIANA HAS OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY O F RS.1,00,00,000/- ON 22.05.2009 THROUGH RTGS FROM AXIS 2 ITA NO.1170/CHD/2017 BANK LTD. FROM A COMPANY M/S SHALINI HOLDING LTD., C- 4/152, FIRST FLOOR, SECTOR-6, ROHINI, NEW DELHI, AGAINST CA SH THROUGH A MIDDLE MAN MR. RAVINDRA ARYA. HENCE, THE AMOU NT OF RS.1,00,00,000/- IS REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS' OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR A.Y. 2010-11., IT IS FURTHER FOUND THAT THIS GROUP HAS GIVEN ACCOMMODATIO N ENTRIES TO 12 PERSONS AND FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF 14.95 CRS. DUR ING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR 2005-06 TO 2010-11 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2006 -07 TO 2011-12 FROM M/S SHAINI HOLDINGS LTD. AND OTHERS DU MMY COMPANIES FLOATED BY SH. SURENDER KUMAR JAIN AND SH. VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN(ENTRY PROVIDERS). A SEARCH/ SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON THE BUSINE SS PREMISED/ RESIDENCES OF SH. SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND SH. VIRENDRA JAIN WHO WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF P ROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES BY TRGS/CHEQUES/PO/DD IN LIEU OF CASH TO A LARGE NUMBERS OF COMPANIES THROUGH VARIOU S PAPER AND DUMMY COMPANIES FLOATED FOR THE PURPOSE. 2. THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE UNDERSIGNED HAS BEEN EXAMINED CAREFULLY AND AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MY MI ND I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT BY REASON OF OMISSION O R FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRUL Y ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AMOUNTING TO RS.1,00,00,000/- HAS ESCAP ED ASSESSMENT AND IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF NOT ICE U/S 148 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 4. REFERRING TO THE SAME LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ST ATED THAT THE AFORESAID REASONS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURIS DICTION U/S 148 OF THE ACT TO REOPEN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SINC E THE BELIEF ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AO) OF INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT WAS BASED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND THE A.O. IN FACT HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. REFERRING TO THE REAS ONS RECORDED THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE SAME REVEALS T HAT THE A.O. CONCLUDED THAT THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 CRORE H AD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF RS.1 CRORE THROUGH RTGS FROM AXIS BANK FROM A COMPANY M/S SHALINI HOLDING LTD. WHICH WAS A DUMMY COMPANY FLOATED BY SHRI SURINDER KUMAR JAIN AND VARINDER KUMAR JAIN ON WHOM SEARCH AND SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED B Y THE DEPARTMENT AND IT WAS REVEALED THAT THEY WERE PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY IN LIEU OF CASH TO A LARGE NUMBER OF COMPANIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO HOW THE A.O. CAME TO THE 3 ITA NO.1170/CHD/2017 CONCLUSION THAT M/S SHALINI HOLDING LTD. IS A COMPANY FLOATED BY S/SHRI SURINDER KUMAR JAIN AND VARINDER KUMAR JAIN AND ON PERU SAL OF VARIOUS STATEMENTS OF S/SHRI SURINDER KUMAR JAIN AND VAR INDER KUMAR JAIN, THERE IS NO MENTION OF M/S SHALINI HOLDING LTD. IN THE S AME. FURTHER THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT TH E EVIDENCE IN ANY CASE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE A.O. IS ON THE ALLEGED UNILATE RAL ADMISSION OF A THIRD PARTY DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132 O F THE ACT AND THIS CANNOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION OF ESCAPEMENT OF IN COME. THAT THERE IS NO TANGIBLE OR DIRECT EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WHILE REJECTING THIS GROUND RAISED BEFORE HIM. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN BY THE LD. DR TO PARA 4.4 OF THE ORDER AS UNDER: 4.4 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT RAISED OBJECTION ON THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 148 OF THE ACT AT THE TIM E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IN DETAIL DEALT WITH THE OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS I AM NOT INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF TH E APPELLANT AS APPARENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO DELVED T HE OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT FOR INITIATION OF 148 AT TH E TIME OF IS MEANT IN DETAIL. IT IS SEEN THAT THE DEPARTMENT RECEIV ED INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DDIT(LNV.), UNIT VL(2), NEW DELHI THAT THE APPELLANT HAD OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF RS. 1,00,00,0007- ON 25.05.2009 THROUGH RTGS FROM AXIS BANK, FROM A COMPANY M/S SHALINI HOLDING LTD, C4, 152, FIRST FLOOR, SEC-6, ROHINI, NEW DELHI AGAINST CASH THROUGH A MIDDLE M AN MR. RAVINDER ARYA. AS PER INFORMATION, THE COMPANY I.E. M/S SHALINI HOLDING LIMITED IS A DUMMY COMPANY FLOATED BY SH. SURINDER KUMAR JAIN & SH. VARINDER KUMAR JAIN WHOSE RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS BUSINESS PREMISES WERE SEARCHED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, NEW DELHI. THESE PERSONS FOUND TO BE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES BY RTGS/CHEQUES/PO/DD IN LIEU OF CASH TO A LARGE NUMBE R OF COMPANIES THROUGH VARIOUS PAPER AND DUMMY COMPANIES FLOATED FOR THE PURPOSE. THEREFORE, THE AO INITIATED TH E RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 OF T HE ACT AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS U/S 147 FOR THE ACT. I H AVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT FROM INVESTI GATION WING AS PER REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVE D IN THIS OFFICE ON 15.03.2017. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF A LL THE FACTS I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HA S FOLLOWED ALL THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY SECTION148 OF THE ACT. T HE 4 ITA NO.1170/CHD/2017 INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT MAKES A STRO NG BASIS FOR THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSING OFFICER WERE HAVING RE ASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED. THE INFORMATION SEN T BY THE DDIT(LNV.), UNIT VL(2), NEW DELHI THAT THE APPELLANT HAD OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF RS. 1,00,00,0007- ON 25.05.2009 THROUGH RTGS FROM AXIS BANK, FROM A COMPANY M/S SHALINI HOLDING LTD, C4, 152, FIRST FLOOR, SEC-6, ROHIN I, NEW DELHI AGAINST CASH THROUGH A MIDDLE MAN MR. RAVIN DER ARYA. AS PER INFORMATION, THE COMPANY I.E. M/S SHALINI HOLDING LIMITED IS A DUMMY COMPANY FLOATED BY SH. SURIND ER KUMAR JAIN & SH. VARINDER KUMAR JAIN WHOSE RESIDENTIA L AS WELL AS BUSINESS PREMISES WERE SEARCHED BY THE INVES TIGATION WING, NEW DELHI. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE INFORMATION I S VERY CLEAR AND SELF-CONTAINED WHICH STATES THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY M/S SHALINI HOLDING LIMITED WHICH IS A DUMMY COMPANY FLOATED BY SH. SURINDER KUMA R JAIN & SH. VARINDER KUMAR JAIN. IT IS SEEN THAT THER E IS KNOWINGLY AMBIGUITY IN THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THE REASONS TO BELIEVE DERIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY CORRECT. THEREFORE, IT DOESN'T CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AT THIS STAGE. TH ERE ARE SEVERAL LEGAL PRONOUNCEMENT PERTAINING TO THE REJECTI ON OF COURTS AND OTHER COURTS IN THIS REGARD. 6. REFERRING TO THE SAME, THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) HAD STATED THAT THE INFORMATION IN THE POSSESSION OF THE A.O., A S REPRODUCED IN THE REASONS RECORDED, WAS SUFFICIENT TO FORM BELIEF OF ESC APEMENT OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) HAD GONE THROUGH THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WI NG AND HAD NOTED THAT IT MADE A STRONG BASIS FOR THE A.O. TO HAVE R EASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE LD. DR POIN TED OUT THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD MENTIONED THAT THE INFORMATION WAS VE RY CLEAR AND SELF CONTAINED, STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ENTR Y FROM M/S SHALINI HOLDING LTD. WHICH WAS A DUMMY COMPANY FLOATED BY S/ SHRI SURINDER KUMAR JAIN AND VARINDER KUMAR JAIN AND THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE INFORMATION AND, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAD HE LD THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE A.O. TO BE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY CORRECT. THE LD. DR STATED THAT THE CIT(A) HAD, THEREFORE, RIGHTLY DISMISSE D THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION ASSUME D BY THE A.O. TO FRAME ASSESSMENT U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY PERU SED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER 5 ITA NO.1170/CHD/2017 OF THE CIT(A). AS RIGHTLY MENTIONED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE INFORMATION IN THE POSSESSION OF THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVE D ENTRY FROM ONE M/S SHALINI HOLDING LTD. OF RS.1 CRORE THROUGH RTGS FROM AXIS BANK LTD., WHICH WAS BASED ON INFORMATION COLLECTED DURING SEARCH BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT, AT THE PREMISES OF S/SHRI SURINDER KUMAR JAIN AND VARINDER KUMAR JAIN, WAS A CLEAR INFORMATION AND CANNOT BY ANY STRETCH BE SAID TO BE VAGUE. FURTHER TH E A.O. HAD MENTIONED THAT HE HAD VERIFIED THE FACT OF THE ASSESSEE H AVING RECEIVED RS.1 CRORE FROM M/S SHALINI HOLDING LTD. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE A.O. HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING WHIC H WAS CO- RELATED WITH THE FACTS ON RECORD BEFORE HIM AND THUS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE A.O. HAD DULY APPLIED HIS MIND AND FORMED THE REASONABLE BELIEF OF INCOME HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN HIS POSSESSION. THE C ONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT THE BELIEF WAS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. FURTHER THE CONTE NTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT, WE HOLD, MERITS NO CONSIDERATION SINC E FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING THERE ONLY HAS TO BE A REASONAB LE BELIEF OF INCOME HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND NOT A CONCLUSIVE FINDING O N THE SAME, WHICH CAN BE ARRIVED AT AFTER MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRIE S DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN ASSUMING THE J URISDICTION U/S 148 OF THE ACT TO FRAME ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO.2 CHALLENGING THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) READS AS UNDER: 2. THAT SHE WAS FURTHER NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARIL Y UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS.1.00 CRORES MADE BY THE LD. AO BY T REATING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS LTD. ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE ADVANCE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES BY RESORT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 6 ITA NO.1170/CHD/2017 9. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE AS REPRODUCED IN P ARAGRAPH 5.1 AND 5.2 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE SUNDRY CREDITORS OF R S.1,14,77,437/-. THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE NAMES AN D ADDRESSES OF SUNDRY CREDITORS EXCEEDING OF RS.5,00,000/- WITH THEIR NAME S, PAN, AMOUNT AND NAME OF RANGE WHERE THEY WERE ASSESSED. HE WAS ALSO REQUESTED TO FURNISH CONFIRMATION WITH RESPECT TO SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED FOLLOWING DETAILS: . FURTHER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVE D RS. 1,00,00,000/-DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THROUGH RTGS FROM M/S SHALINI HOLDING LIMITED, NEW DELHI. THE AO ASKED TO FURNISH CONFIRMATION FROM THE SAID THREE PARTIES NAMELY M/S SHALIN I HOLDING LIMITED, M/S MTL SHARES & STOCK BROKERS LTD. AND M/S FID ELITY COMMODITY TRADERS LTD. TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRAN SACTIONS. THE APPELLANT PRODUCED THE TWO CREDITORS NAMELY M/S MTL SH ARES & STOCK BROKERS LTD. AND M/S FIDELITY COMMODITY TRADERS LTD. BUT FAILED TO PRODUCE THE CREDITOR NAMELY M/S SHALINI HOLDING LIMITED. AFTE R DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, THE AO MADE D ISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,00,00,000/- AS PER DETAILED ENQUIRY ,MENTIONED AT PA RA NO. 5.5 TO PARA 6. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESS EE CONTENDED THAT IT HAD PROVED THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENU INENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND FURTHER THAT THE AMOUNT ADVANCED WAS IN THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS ADVANCE REC EIVED FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARES FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND AGAIN ST WHICH THE SHARES HAD BEEN SOLD AND THE BALANCE ADVANCE OUTSTAND ING WAS SR. NO. NAME & ADDRESS AMOUNT 1. M/S SHALINI HOLDING LIMITED, 209, 2 ND FLOOR, 6/41, SUNDER KIRAN BUILDING WES, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI- 110005. RS. 23,70,987/- 2. M/S MTL SHARES & STOCK BROKERS LTD., SCO- 19, FEROZE GANDHI MARKET, LUDHIANA. RS. 22,63,948/- 3. M/S FIDELITY COMMODITY TRADERS LTD., 3219, NAI ABADI, GAUSHALA ROAD, SIRHIND. RS. 57,29,425/- 7 ITA NO.1170/CHD/2017 RS.23,70,987/- AND SINCE THE PURCHASE SHARES OF THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY OR EVEN THE SALE TRANSACTION HAD NOT BEEN DOUBTED AND FURTHER THE GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SALE OF SHARES HAD BEE N DULY ACCEPTED MEANING THEREBY THAT THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SHARE TO M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVING BEEN DULY ACCEP TED THERE WAS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID COMPANY. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON NUMEROUS CA SE LAWS. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO THIS EFFECT WERE FILED BY THE ASSESS EE WHICH WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS, WHO REITERA TED HIS FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD RELIED UPON THE APPRAISAL REPORT IN THE CASE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED ON SHRI S.K. JAIN AND SHRI V.K. JAIN AND FU RTHER ON THE GAPS OR DISCREPANCIES IN THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECORDED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT SUFFICIEN T ENOUGH TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TH E TRANSACTION AND THE INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUFFICIE NTLY PROVED THAT THE SAID ENTRY WAS A BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. THE MAIN CRUX OF THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WERE TWO FOLD: I) THAT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAD BEEN ADEQUATELY PROVED WITH DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCES FILED. DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REPRODUCED AT PARAGRAPH 5.3 OF HIS ORDER. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE IDENTITY OF M/S. SHALINI HOLDING S HAD BEEN PROVED BY FILING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: (I) CONFIRMATION. (II) COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURNS. 8 ITA NO.1170/CHD/2017 (III) PAN (IV) CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION (V) MEMORANDUM OF ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION (VI) COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE SAID AMOUNT (VII) COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS. 11. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT M/S. SHALIN I HOLDINGS BEING A COMPANY WAS DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPA NIES ACT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO THIS EFFECT HAVING BEEN FILED THER E COULD NOT BE DOUBT WITH RESPECT TO THE IDENTITY OF THE SAID COMPANY V IS--VIS THE CREDITWORTHINESS. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED T HAT THE TRANSACTION HAD TAKEN PLACE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AN D THERE WAS NO CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE AMOUNT WAS ADVANCES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY. FURTHER THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S. SHALIN I HOLDINGS HAD BEEN DEMONSTRATED AND BEING NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITOR AND NO CASH HAVING BEEN RECEIVE D IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE MAKING OF THE ADVANCE, THERE WAS NO REASON T O DOUBT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR AND THE ONUS OF THE ES TABLISHING THE CREDITWORTHINESS HAD THUS BEEN DULY ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAVING BEEN DULY EST ABLISHED, THE GENUINENESS ALSO STOOD ESTABLISHED AND THERE WAS NO REA SON TO DOUBT THE SAME. II) THE NEXT CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION OF RS.1 CRORE WAS MADE ON ACC OUNT OF SALE OF VARIOUS SHARES AND SECURITIES BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. S HALINI HOLDINGS LTD. IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS AND A SUM OF RS.23,7 0,987/- WAS THEREAFTER OUTSTANDING AS AT THE END OF THE IMPUGNED YE AR AS ADVANCED AGAINST THE SHARES, WITH THE BALANCE HAVING BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE SALE OF SHARES TO M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID FACT HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING 9 ITA NO.1170/CHD/2017 OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH FACT FINDS M ENTION IN PARAGRAPH 5.3 OF THE LD. CIT(A) ORDER AND THE SAID FACTS WERE ALSO POINT ED OUT TO THE LD. CIT(A), IN RESPONSE TO THE REMAND REPOR T FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. OUR ATTE NTION WAS DRAWN TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 17.05.2016 REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO.38 OF THE ORDER AS UNDER: IN CONTINUATION TO OUR EARLIER SUBMISSIONS, THE FOL LOWING IS SUBMITTED FOR YOUR HONOUR'S KIND CONSIDERATION AND NECESSARY ADJUDICAT ION. VIDE THE EARLIER SUBMISSIONS, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS STRONGLY AGITATED AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKI NG AN ADDITION OF RS. 1.00 CRORE BY RESORT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 BY HOLDIN G THAT THE CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS NOT FULLY EXPL AINED. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT IT IS WRONG TO TERM THI S CREDIT AS A CASH CREDIT AS THIS AMOUNT HAD BEEN RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE PROCEED S OF SHARES WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE PERUSAL OF COPY OF ACCOUNT. THE AMOUNT OTH ERWISE ALSO STANDS REFLECTED UNDER THE HEAD 'SUNDRY CREDITORS' AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD 'SHARE CAPITAL/SHARE APPLICATION MONEY/UNSECURED LOAN'. YOUR HONOUR WILL APPRECIATE THAT THE EVERY CREDIT HAS TO BE VIEWED VIS-A-VIS THE NATURE IT REP RESENTS AND MERELY BECAUSE THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM A PARTICULAR COMPANY CANNOT BE HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68. THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS ALREADY MA DE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS EVEN WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 BUT FACT O F THE MATTER IS THAT LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, NO ADDITION WA S WARRANTED BY RESORT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 AS THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVE D IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS ONLY. IT MAY FURTHER BE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER HAD FULLY ACCEPTED THE PURCHASES, SALES, OTHER EXPENSES AND RECEIPTS OF TH E APPELLANT COMPANY AND NO DEFECT HAS BEEN NOTICED OR PIN-POINTED IN THE MAINT ENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER. COPY OF BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS ENCLOSED FOR FACILITY O F REFERENCE. COPIES OF DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE VIDE LETTERS DATED 27.12.2013, 20. 01.2014 AND 29.01.2014 BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE CRE DIT OF RS. 1.00 CRORE ARE ALSO ENCLOSED FOR YOUR HONOUR'S KIND PERUSAL. IT IS RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING T HE APPEAL, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ABOVE MAY ALSO KINDLY BE CONSIDERED AND THE APPEAL BE ADJUDICATED ACCORDINGLY. 12. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES HAD NOT DOUBTED THE PURCHASES, SALES AND O THER EXPENSES RELATING TO THE SAID TRANSACTION, AND THEREFORE, HAVING ACC EPTED THE SAID TRANSACTIONS THERE WAS NO OCCASION OR REASON TO DOUBT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE RECEIVED FROM M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS. 13. LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES. FURTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE ALSO FILED BEFO RE US DATED 26.02.2018 AND THE MAIN THRUST OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED DR WAS THAT THE INFORMATION IN THE POSSESSION OF THE REVENUE AUT HORITIES 10 ITA NO.1170/CHD/2017 ADEQUATELY PROVED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ONLY AN A CCOMMODATION ENTRY. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE APPRAISAL REPORT IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURENDRA JAIN AND SHRI VIRENDRA JAIN REPRODUCED AT PARA GRAPH 5.9.1 OF THE LD. CIT(A) ORDER AND IT WAS POINTED OUT FROM THE SAME THAT IT CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF RS.1 CRORE FROM M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS LTD. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE MODUS OPERANDI OUTLINED IN THE SAID REPORT POINTING OUT THEREFROM THAT WHILE THE SEARCH OPERATION CONDUCTED IN THE CASE O F SHRI S.K. JAIN AND SHRI V.K. JAIN AND THE POST SEARCH INQUIRIES REVEALED THAT THEY HAD FORMED VARIOUS BOGUS COMPANIES FOR GIVING ACCOMMODATION E NTRIES WHICH WERE INTRODUCED THROUGH CASH RECEIVED WHICH WERE LATER ON CHANNELIZED IN VARIOUS DUMMIES COMPANIES THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ULTIMA TELY BEING RECEIVED IN THE HANDS OF THE BENEFICIARIES. OUR ATTEN TION WAS DRAWN TO ANNEXURE-A OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT IN WHICH THE TRAN SACTION OF RS.1 CRORE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED THROUGH M/S. SH ALINI HOLDINGS WAS ALSO MENTIONED AS ONE OF THE TRANSACTION UNDERTAKEN BY SHRI V.K. JAIN & SHRI S.K. JAIN THROUGH INTERMEDIARY MR. RAVINDRA ARY A.LD. DR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT DESPITE THE FACT DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCES PROVING THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS, GENUINENESS OF THE M/S. S HALINI HOLDINGS HAD BEEN FILED, BUT THE FACT THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE CREDITOR COMPANY , SHRI ANIL PRAKASH, FAILED TO GIVE SATISFACTORY REP LIES TO THE QUERIES REGARDING SOURCE OF INCOME,SOURCES OF INCOME SHOW N IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, COMPANY FORMATION, TRANSACTIONS MADE B Y M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER CONCERNS AS MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE SAID DIRECTOR HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE COM PLETE INFORMATION INCLUDING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISC HARGE THE PRIMARY ONUS BY ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF THE SUBSCRIBER .THE CREDITWORTHINESS ALSO IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE LEARN ED DR, WAS NOT PROVED SINCE THERE WAS NOMINAL CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.5,61,462 /- IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE WA S CREDITED IN THE 11 ITA NO.1170/CHD/2017 ACCOUNT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE IT WAS ADVANCED TO THE ASSES SEE. THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE WAS RECEIVED BY M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS FR OM M/S. DHANGURU FINANCIAL SOLUTION, WHICH THE DDIT INVESTIGATION UN IT VI-2 HAD INTIMATED, WAS A DUMMY PAPER COMPANY FLOATED BY SHR I S.K. JAIN AND SHRI V.K. JAIN. LD. DR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE INC OME OF THE SUBSCRIBER AS PER THE P&L ACCOUNT WAS VERY SMALL A ND THEREFORE THE CREDITWORTHINESS WAS ALSO DOUBTFUL.RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON A NUMBER OF CASE LAWS IN THIS REGARD AS UNDER: (I.) CIT VS NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE (P) LTD.(2012) 18 TAXMAN.COM 217(DELHI) (II.) CIT VS. NR PORTFOLIO (P) LTD, 263 CTR 456 (DEL) (III.) CIT VS. NIPUN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, (2013) 350 I TR 407 (DEL) (IV.) CIT VS. MAF ACADEMY P. LTD, 361 ITR 258 (DEL) (V.) CIT VS. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD ., (2015) 375 ITR 373 (VI.) ITO VS. PARAMOUNT INTERCONTINENTAL PVT. LTD.,(2017- LL-0207-80) DATED 7-2- 17 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GON E THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVE ALSO CONSIDE RED THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US. THE ISSUE BEFORE US RELATES TO THE TREATMENT OF RS.1 CRORE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR FRO M M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. AS UNEXPLAINED AND AS ONLY AN ACCOMMO DATION ENTRY IN ITS BOOKS. THE FACTS WHICH ARE NOT DISPUTED IS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS ON 25.05.2009 THROUGH RTGS FROM AXIS BANK. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT AGAINST THE S AID AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR IS RS.23,70,987/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID A MOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARE S FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WHILE THE BALANCE WAS SETTLED AGAIN ST THE SAID TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SHARES AND ADVANCE OF RS.23,70,987/- REMAINED AT THE END OF THE YEAR. COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED, CONFIRMATION OF M/S. SHALINI H OLDINGS IN THIS REGARD WAS FILED. ALL THE ABOVE FACTS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND, HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE AT ANY STAGE. FURTHER WE 12 ITA NO.1170/CHD/2017 FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT DOUBTED THE PURCHASE OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH HAVE BEEN SOLD TO M/S. SHALINI HO LDINGS. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT DOUBTED THE SALE OF SHARES OF M/S . SHALINI HOLDINGS BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT IS THEREFORE OBVIOUS AND C LEAR THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSA CTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AGAINST WHICH THE IMPUGNED ADVANCE O F RS.1 CRORE WAS RECEIVED. IN FACT,DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, A QUESTION WAS RAISED TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT BAR, WHETHER ANY PROFITS WERE EARNED FROM THE SAID TRANSACTION TO WHICH OUR ATTE NTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PLACE D IN THE PAPER BOOK AND POINTED OUT THEREFROM THAT THE PROFIT ON THE S ALE OF SHARES WAS DULY INCLUDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY. WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT EVEN DOUBTED AND HAD IN FACT ACCEPTED THIS FACT BY ACCEPTING THE PROFITS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY. HAVING AT NO STAGE DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF PUR CHASE AND SALE OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ,IN THE COURSE OF WHICH IT RECEIVED THE IMPUGNED SUM OF RS. 1 CRORE FROM M/S SHALINI HOLDINGS, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEN THE AMOUNT RECEIVED COULD BE SAID TO BE UNEXPLAINED. OR FOR THAT MATTER ACCOMMODATION ENTRY ONL Y. FROM WHAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE TERMINOLOGY OF THE ACCOMMO DATION ENTRY IT MEANS A BOGUS ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF A PERSO N, SHOWN IN THE NAME OF SOME OTHER PERSON TO ACCOMMODATE AND TO BRING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE OWN INCOME OF THE IMPUGNED PERSON, CAMOUFLAG ING IT IN THE NAME OF SOME OTHER PERSON. IT IS IN EFFECT AN ENTRY TO AC COMODATE OWN INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOT DIRECTL Y AND TRUTHFULLY, BUT IN THE NAME OF SOME OTHER PERSON AND NOT BY WAY OF ANY INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAVING DEMONSTRATED TH AT AGAINST THE ADVANCE OF RS.1 CRORE RECEIVED, SHARES WERE SOLD TO M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS, WHICH FACT HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE REVENUE , WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE SAID TRANSACTION CAN BE TERMED AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. 13 ITA NO.1170/CHD/2017 15. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION OF B ALANCE OUTSTANDING IN THE NAME OF M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS AND HAS ALS O PROVED THE IDENTITY OF THE SAID ENTITY BY WAY OF FILING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF PAN, RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSM ENT YEAR AND THE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF THE SAID COMPAN Y. THE CREDITWORTHINESS ALSO WE AGREE HAS BEEN PROVED BY THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED THROUGH RTGS I.E., THROUGH BANKIN G CHANNEL AND THERE WAS NO CASH DEPOSIT PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER OF THE SAID AMOUNT FROM M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS TO THE ASSESSEE. 16. THE ENTIRE CASE OF THE REVENUE, WE FIND REST ON THE APPRAISAL REPORT PREPARED BY THE INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT OF THE REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF SEARCH CONDUCTED ON SHRI V.K. JAIN AND SHRI S.K. JAIN WHICH MENTIONS THE INFERENCE AND CONCLUSION DRAWN FROM THE SEARCH CONDU CTED AT SHRI V.K. JAIN AND SHRI S.K. JAIN HAS THE SAID TWO COMPANIES THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDERS AND DESCRIBING THE MODUS OPERANDI BY WHICH THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED BY THEM A ND THE ANNEXURE FORWARDED ALONG WITH THE APPRAISAL REPORT MENTIO NING THE NAME OF M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS AS ONE OF THE COMPANIES BEING RUN BY SHRI S.K. JAIN AND SHRI V.K. JAIN PROVIDING ENTRIES OF RS.1 CRORE TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY I.E., GALA FINANCE AND INVESTMENT LTD. F URTHER THE REVENUE HAS RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF ONE OF THE DIRECTOR OF M/S. SHALINI HOLDINGS POINTED OUT THAT HE WAS NOT EVEN AWA RE ABOUT THE BASIC FACTS RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NOR TRANS ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION ONLY CREATES A SUSPICION ABOUT THE TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT, BUT SUSPICION ALONE CANNOT FORM THE BASIS FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION AND IN THE PRESENT CASE TH E ASSESSEE HAVING DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF T HE TRANSACTION BY PROVIDING ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ESTABLISHING THE IDEN TITY AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND HAVING DEMONSTRATED ADEQUATELY 14 ITA NO.1170/CHD/2017 THAT THE MONEY WAS NOT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF ANY SHA RE APPLICATION OR SHARE CAPITAL BUT WAS IN LIEU OF SALE OF SHARES TO THE CRED ITOR, WHICH FACT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE, THE DOUBT AND SUSPICION CREATED BY THE INFORMATION IN THE APPRAISAL REPORT OR DER IVED FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE DIRECTOR, WE HOLD IS NOT SUFFIC IENT TO TREAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT RECEIVED AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OR UNE XPLAINED CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. ALSO THE RELIANCE PLA CED BY THE LD.DR ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS AS CITED BEFORE US, ARE WE FIND, OF NO ASSISTANCE SINCE THEY ARE ALL DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS, AS THE AMOUNT R ECEIVED IN THOSE CASES WAS IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WH OSE GENUINESS REMAINED UNPROVED, WHILE IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES, WHICH TRANSACTION H AS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE REVENUE. THE ADDITION THEREFORE MADE OF RS.1 CRORE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/01/2019 SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 18/01/2019 PKK ' ! , ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / THE APPELLANT / THE RESPONDENT % - / CIT % - ( )/ THE CIT(A) ! , , 0123 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 2 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR