ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. India Texfab Marketing Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1177/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 117720114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Question of law; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1177/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 ITO, WARD - 11 (4), ROOM NO.324, CR BUILDING, NEW DELHI. VS. INDIA TEXFAB MARKETING LTD., 40-41, COMMUNITY CENTRE, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAACI2067A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.S. SINGHVI, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI SATPAL SINGH, SR.DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2012 PASSED BY T HE CIT (A)-XV, NEW DELHI, CONTENDING THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ON ACCOUN T OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS/CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER THE RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM CERTAIN ENTRY OPERATORS A ND HAD INTRODUCED CERTAIN SUMS IN THE GARB OF SHARE CAPITAL. THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS REOPENED. IN THE RE-ASSESSME NT ITA NO.1177/DEL/2012 2 ORDER DATED 8.12.2008, IT WAS HELD THAT AN AMOUNT OF ` 10,01,500/- ( ` 5,00,750/- EACH RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S STAR GARMENTS PVT. LTD. AND M/S MANJU AGENCIES), INTRODUCED AS SHARE CAPIT AL BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS BOGUS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. THIS AMOUNT WAS AD DED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEES INCOME U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. 3. BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE AFORESAID ADDITION, BRINGING THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE U S BY WAY OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. DR HAS STR ONGLY RELIED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION; THAT WHILE DOING SO, T HE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THAT NEITHER OF THE ASSESSEES CREDITORS W ERE CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS AND THAT THEY WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES; AND THAT THE LD. CI T (A) HAS ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT S. THE LD. DR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON NOVA PROMOTERS, 342 ITR 16 9 (DEL). 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE DEPAR TMENT HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY PROVED THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS; THAT AS PER CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS, 299 ITR 268 (SC), RIGHTLY RELIED ON BY THE LD. CIT (A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION WRONGLY MADE, ONCE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS HAS BEEN E STABLISHED, EVEN IF THERE IS A CASE OF BOGUS SHARE CAPITAL, IT CAN NOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE ABSENCE OF THERE BEI NG ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE ADVERSE TO THE ASSESSEE. APROPOS NO VA PROMOTERS (SUPRA), THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS AV ERRED THAT ITA NO.1177/DEL/2012 3 THE SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE, AS THE F ACTS THEREIN WERE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT; THAT POST NOVA (SUPRA), C IT VS. GOEL SONS GOLDEN ESTATE PVT. LTD. (COPY IS PLACED ON RECORD) H AS BEEN PASSED ON 11.04.2012 BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WHEREIN , ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE; AND THAT FURTHER, IN INCOME-TAX OFFICER VS. M /S EXCELLENCE TOWN PLANNER (P) LTD., THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL, VIDE ORDER DATED 25.05.2012 (COPY IS PLACED ON RECORD) IN ITA N O.871/DEL/2010, FOR A.Y. 2003-04, CO-AUTHORED BY ONE OF US THE HO NBLE V.P, HAS, IN SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AGAIN DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHILE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION NOVA PROM OTERS (SUPRA). THEN, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT IN CIT VS. EXPO CLUB INDIA LTD., VIDE ORDER DATED 20.07.2012 (COPY IS PLACED O N RECORD) IN ITA NO.1257/DEL/2011, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS A GAIN DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE CONSIDERING NOVA PR OMOTERS (SUPRA). 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SOUGHT TO SUPPO RT THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER RULE 27 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AS PER WHICH, THE RESPONDENT IN AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THOUGH HE MAY NOT HAVE APPEALED, MAY SUPP ORT THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST ON ANY OF THE GROUNDS DECIDED AGAINST HIM. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT BY WAY OF GR OUND NO.1 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN INITIATING RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT, THE SAME BE ING BARRED BY LIMITATION IN VIEW OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT; IT HAD BEEN CONTENDED THAT ADMITTEDLY THE REOPENING OF THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT WAS NOT WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT BEING U/S 143 ( 3) OF THE ACT AND THERE BEING NO FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT T HERE WAS ANY ITA NO.1177/DEL/2012 4 OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN DISCLOSI NG CORRECT PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION IN DISREGARD OF THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 147 OF THE ACT; IT HAD ALSO BEEN CONTENDED THAT EVEN OTHER WISE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO MATERIAL OF ANY INCOME HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT OR ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND THE PR OCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF REFERENCE FROM THE DIT (INV.) WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER AND REQUISITE SATISFACTION , DUE TO WHICH, THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS WAS ILLEGAL AND INVALID. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS, IN T HIS REGARD, WRONGLY HELD THAT THE NOTICE FOR REOPENING THE COMP LETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS VALID, BEING WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT AN D HAVING BEEN ISSUED WITH DUE PERMISSION AS LAID DOWN IN SECTIONS 149/1 51 OF THE ACT. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) H AS ALSO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REASON TO BELIEVE ESCAPEMENT OF INCO ME, AS HARBOURED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS A VALID REASON, H AVING BEEN FORMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON SPECIFIC INFORMATION FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH INFORMAT ION WAS NOT GENERAL OR VAGUE, PERTAINING TO THE TRANSACTIONS ENTE RED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. SINCE THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP FIRST ON THE MERITS O F THE CASE, THE PARTIES WERE NOT HEARD WITH REGARD TO THE AFORESAID P RELIMINARY OBJECTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 27 OF THE IT AT RULES. IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT ONLY IF AFTER HEARING THE MATTER ON MERITS, IT WAS FELT THAT THE SAID OBJECTION REQUIRED TO BE GONE INT O, THE PARTIES WOULD BE ASKED TO ADDRESS THEIR RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN THIS BEH ALF. ITA NO.1177/DEL/2012 5 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IS AS TO WHETHER THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED FAI LURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS/CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS, HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT ( A). 9. FIRST OFF, IT IS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, A PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT SHOWS T HAT THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT DISPUTE BEFORE US THE FACTUM OF T HE ASSESSEE HAVING DULY PROVED THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICA NTS. ON THIS LONE SCORE, LOVELY EXPORTS (SUPRA) IS ATTRACTED. AS PER L OVELY EXPORTS (SUPRA), IF THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS IS PRO VED, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY, EVEN IF IT IS A CASE OF BOGUS SHARE CAPITAL, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ADVERSE TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. ON FACTS, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE DUL Y FURNISHED THE FOLLOWING PARTICULARS WITH REGARD TO TH E TWO SHARE APPLICANTS:- A) STAR GARMENTS PVT. LTD. I. COPY OF SHARE APPLICATION II. COPY OF CHEQUE III. COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IV. COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTION V. COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ITR VI. COPY OF FORM 18 FILED WITH ROC VII. COPY OF FORM 32 VIII. AUDITED B SHEET ALONG WITH A. REPORT FOR THE YEAR EN DING 31.03.1999. ITA NO.1177/DEL/2012 6 B) RAJSHREE MARKETING AND SERVICES PVT. LTD. I. COPY OF SHARE APPLICATION II. COPY OF CHEQUE III. COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IV. COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTION V. COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ITR VI. COPY OF FORM 18 FILED WITH ROC VII. COPY OF FORM 32. 11. THUS, UNDISPUTEDLY, ALL THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS FURTHER ON RECORD THAT VIDE LETTER D ATED 05.12.2008, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ALONG WITH AF FIDAVIT OF THE DIRECTOR, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ALLO TTED ANY SHARES TO MANJU AGENCIES; THAT RATHER, DURING THE YEAR , SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO STAR GARMENTS PVT. LTD. AND RAJSHREE MA RKETING AND SERVICES PVT. LTD., WITH REGARD TO BOTH OF WHICH PAR TIES, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, AS ABOVE. F ROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO, IT IS AVAILABLE THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAD ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE HAVING PROVED THE IDENTITY AND G ENUINENESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS. THE PAYMENT OF THE SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY WAS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, WHICH FACT WAS ALSO AC CEPTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHALLENGED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR THE RE ASON THAT THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT AND THE CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VIDE LETTER DATED 05.08.2011 , SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT WHICH WAS DULY CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT (A). IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS TO BE T REATED TO HAVE COME FROM RAJSHREE MARKETING AND SERVICES PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ` 5,00,750/- EACH FROM STAR GARMENTS PVT. LTD. AND ITA NO.1177/DEL/2012 7 RAJSHREE MARKETING AND SERVICES PVT. LTD. THE LD. CI T (A) FOUND AS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY FILED THE DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE CONCERNING THESE TWO PARTIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THIS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATION FROM THE INVESTOR COMPANY, ITS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN, PAN, BOARDS RESOLUTION, FORM NOS.18 AND 32 FILED WITH THE ROC, BA NK STATEMENT AND AUDITED BALANCE SHEET. THIS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FOUND TO SUPPORT THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES AND TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL MONEY TRANSACTION. IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON R ECORD TO PROVE THAT THE MONEY IN QUESTION WAS THE ASSESSEES OWN UNDISCLOSE D INCOME; THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SIMPLY EXPLAINED THE MODUS OPERANDI INVOLVED IN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY TRANSACTION S; THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MERELY RELIED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTS; THAT FROM THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE SUBSCRIPTI ON OF SHARE CAPITAL WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE TWO INVESTO R COMPANIES THROUGH CHEQUES AND THE COMPANIES WERE DULY REGISTERED WITH THE ROC; AND THAT IT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMPANIES WERE HAVING PAN AND WERE REGULARLY FILING THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT TRIED TO ASCE RTAIN THEIR LATEST ADDRESSES FROM THE ASSESSEE, FOR CONDUCTING ANY FURTHER IN QUIRY IN THEIR CASES. 13. THE LD. CIT (A) PLACED RELIANCE ON CIT VS. LOVE LY EXPORTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), APPLYING IT TO THE PRESENT CASE ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT (A) PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOL LOWING CASE LAWS:- ITA NO.1177/DEL/2012 8 I) JUDGEMENT DATED 30.01.2009 OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GANGOUR INVESTMENT LTD. (INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.34/2007). II) CIT VS. VALUE CAPITAL SERVICES P. LTD., (2008) 307 ITR 334 (DEL) III) CIT VS. PRADEEP GUPTA 207 CTR 115 (DEL) IV) CIT VS. DIVINE LEASING & FINANCE LTD. (SC) (CC 375 /2008) DECISION DATED 21.01.2008 V) CIT VS. M/S PONDY METAL AND ROLLING MILL PVT. LTD. (DEL) (ITA NO.788/2006 DECISION DATED 19.02.2007. 14. APROPOS NOVA PROMOTERS (SUPRA), IT IS SEEN THAT TH E SAME HAS BEEN ELABORATELY CONSIDERED IN M/S EXCELLENCE TOWN P LANNER (P) LTD. (SUPRA) AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THEREIN, INTER ALIA, AS F OLLOWS:- 10. THE LD DR AT THE TIME OF HEARING RELIED UPON THE J UDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NOVA PROMO TORS, IT WAS POINTED OUT TO US BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THA T THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GOYAL SONS GOLDEN ESTATE PVT. LTD . IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE JUDGMENT OF NOVA PROMOTORS. IN THAT CASE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE SHARE APP LICANTS WHICH WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PR ODUCE THE SHARE APPLICANTS HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY, FILED THEIR AFFIDAVITS. THEY SUGGEST THAT AN INQUIRY MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF NOVA PROMOTORS ABOUT THE ANTECEDE NTS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO INQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SIMPLY TREATED THE INFORMATION COLLECTED BY THE INVESTIGATING WING AS A GO SPEL TRUTH. TO OUR MIND THAT INFORMATION COULD BE SUFFICIENT F OR STARTING INVESTIGATION TO THAT CANNOT BE A SUBSTITUTION OF ALL SORT OF EVIDENCE. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE ORDER OF LD CIT (A) IN THE LIGHT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURTS DECISION REFERRED ABOVE, WE DO NO T FIND ANY FORCE IN THE CONTENTIONS OF LD DR AND WE DO NOT SEE A NY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT (A). ITA NO.1177/DEL/2012 9 14.1 IN GOEL SONS GOLDEN ESTATE PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), I T WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 3. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE SAID CONTENTION AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS HAS FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE COMPANIES, THEIR P AN NUMBER, COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS, AFFIDAVITS AND BALANCE SHEET. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASKED THE ASSES SEE TO PRODUCE THE SAID DIRECTORS/ PARTIES. ASSESSEE EXPRESS ED ITS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THEM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSEQUENT THERETO CONDUCT ANY INQUIRY AND CLOSED TH E ROCEEDINGS. THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS FAILED TO CONDUCT NECESSARY INQUIRY, VERIFICATION AND DEAL W ITH THE MATTER IN DEPTH SPECIALLY AFTER THE AFFIDAVIT/CONFIRMAT ION ALONG WITH THE BANK STATEMENTS ETC. WERE FILED. IN CASE THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAD CONDUCTED THE SAID ENQUIRIES AND INVESTI GATION PROBABLY THE CHALLENGE MADE BY THE REVENUE WOULD BE JUSTIFIED. IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE INQUIRIES AND NON-VERIFICATIO N OF THE DETAILS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE FA CTUAL FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE INCO MPLETE AND SPARSE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED CANNOT BE TREATED A ND REGARDED AS PERVERSE. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 14.2. FURTHER, IN EXPO GLOBE INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), I T WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 6. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT ITATS ORDE R GIVES INDICATION TO THE FACT THAT SOME SHAREHOLDERS WERE REFU NDED THE AMOUNTS INITIALLY GIVEN BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE AND THAT TH IS ASPECT ITSELF PRIMA FACIE POINTED THAT AN ORDER UNDE R SECTION- 68 WAS WARRANTED. COUNSEL ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECI SION IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLE ASE (P) LTD. (ITA-342/2011, DECIDED ON 15.02.2012) BY THE DI VISION BENCH OF THIS COURT. 7. THIS COURT HAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMIS SIONS. THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION, PARTICULARLY THE ORDER OF THE CI T (A), WOULD REVEAL THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INI TIALLY CONCLUDED ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIALS MADE AVAILABL E AT THAT STAGE THAT SERVICE OF THE ENTRY PROVIDERS HAD BEEN UTILIZ ED TO BRING IN CAPITAL, AFTER REMAND THE CIT (A) ELABORATELY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT CONSIDERABLE MATERIAL FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE E. THESE INCLUDED INCOME TAX RETURNS, BALANCE SHEETS, ROC PARTIC ULARS AND BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS. ON THE BASIS OF THESE, THE C IT (A) HELD THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OR THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAD BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXP LAINED. THE ITA NO.1177/DEL/2012 10 ITAT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT NO INTERFERENCE WAS WARRAN TED HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ONLY SENTENCE IN PARAGRAPH-6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT AMOUNTS WERE REFUNDED TO THE APPLICANTS ITSEL F SHOULD NOT BE A GROUND TO CONCLUDE THAT THE FINDINGS RECORDED B Y THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE. TH E ENTIRE CONTROVERSY SOUGHT TO BE RAISED IS PURELY FACTUAL. 15. THUS, CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, AND THE FACT THAT IN NOVA PROMOTERS (SUPRA), THERE WAS ADVERSE MATERIAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE HEREIN, NOVA PROMOTERS (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. 16. HENCE, FINDING NO ERROR OR IRREGULARITY OR ILLE GALITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AND FINDING THE SAME TO BE A N ELABORATE WELL REASONED ORDER, WE HEREBY CONFIRM IT, REJECTING THE GRIEVANCE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY WAY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN. 17. SINCE THE MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED ON MERITS, AS A BOVE, THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION UNDER RULE 27 OF THE ITAT RULES IS NO T REQUIRED TO BE GONE INTO. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMEN T IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.10.20 12. SD/- SD/- [G.D. AGRAWAL] [A.D. JAIN] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 05.10.2012. DK ITA NO.1177/DEL/2012 11 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES