ITO 16(1)(3), MUMBAI V. MEDIAVEST INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1178/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5808 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAITANYA ANJARIA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Question of law
• Section: 201; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D , MUMBAI BEFORE S HRI R.C. SHARMA ( AM ) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 1178/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2013 - 14 THE ITO - 16(1)(3), ROOM NO. 438, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI - 20 VS. M/S MEDIAVEST INDIA PVT. LTD., 135 CONTINENTAL BUILDING, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI - 400018 PAN: AACCM4290K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI CHAITANYA ANJARIA (D R) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JAY BHANSALI (A R) DATE OF HEARING: 12 / 09 /201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06 / 12 /201 8 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) - 4 (FOR SHORT THE CIT (A) ) , MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 , WHEREBY THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT). 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING NIL INCOME. SINCE, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, NOTICE U/S 143 (2) AND 142 (1) WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICES, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND SUBMITTED THE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR AND ALSO DISCUSSED THE CASE. 2 ITA NO. 1178/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 3. SINCE, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM RELATED PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 80,00,00,000/ - , AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS THEREOF. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS SHOWING THAT IT HAD RECEIVED RS. 5,00,00,000/ - AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM ICL LINES PVT. LTD DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF UTILIZATION AND SOURCE OF AMOUNT REPAID DURING THE YEAR TO ICL LINES PVT. LTD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND ON THE SAME LINE THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AFORESAID . ACCORDINGLY, T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DETAILS OF PAN, ADDRESS OF THE APPLICANT, COPY OF ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE APPLICANT, FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE APPLIC ANT, RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS OF THE APPLICANT IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY OF THE APPLICANT, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE APPLICANT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAS NOT ALLOTTED ANY SHARE AGAINST THE SHA RE APPLIC ATION MONEY RECEIVED DUE TO INSUFFICIENT AUTHORIZED CAPITAL . IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE SETTLED LAW IF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED FROM BOGUS SHARE HOLDERS, THE DEPARTMENT CAN PROCEED TO REOPEN THEIR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS, BUT TH E AMOUNT OF SHARE MONEY CANNOT BE REGARDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 68 OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF ICL LINES PVT. LTD. FROM WHOM, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14 HAS BEEN CONCLUDED AND THE RETURNED INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, THE AO REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E MADE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,00,000/ - U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A ). THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE DEL E TED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE COMPANY FROM WHOM, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WITH THE SAID ENTITY AN D THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF 3 ITA NO. 1178/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 THE PARTY. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A). 5. THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS: A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,00,000/ - MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, TREATING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAME IS COVERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAJOR METALS VS. UNION OF INDIA? B) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A) W AS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,00,000/ - MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAME IS COVERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAJOR METALS VS. UNI ON OF WHEREIN THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LOVELY EXPORTS PVT. LTD. (2008) 319 ITR 5 (SC) HAS BEEN DULY DISCUSSED AND DISTINGUISHED? C) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUS TIFIED IN DIRECTING TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,00,000/ - MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE INSTANT CASE, THE AMOUNTS WHICH WERE REALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO BE IN THE NATURE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEYS WER E NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF A PUBLIC ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL BUT ESSENTIALLY IN THE NATURE OF A PRIVATE PLACEMENT AND THAT TOO FROM RELATED PARTIES? D) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,00,000/ - MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 , BY HOLDING THAT IT IS BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM ESTABLISHED 4 ITA NO. 1178/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 COMPANIES, DULY ASSESSED TO TAX IN MUMBAI AND WHERE REGULAR ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, WITHOUT SIMULTANEOUSLY APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT HEAVY ADDITIONS OF ADVERSE NATURE HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OFFERED BY THOSE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES IN SUCH REGULAR ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED, WHICH ADVERSELY SPEAK ABOUT THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS? 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) RELYING ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,00,000/ - U/S 68 OF THE ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE AMOUNTS WHICH WERE REALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING TO BE THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WERE NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF A PUBLIC ISSUE SHARE CAPITAL BUT ESSENTIALLY IN THE NATURE OF A PRIVATE PLACEMENT AND THAT TO O FROM RELATED PARTIES. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO D ISCHARGE THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE J BENCH OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ITA NO. 3199/MUM/2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2012 - 13. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 345,48,31,000/ - FROM THREE CONCERN S NAMELY 25 FPS MED IA PVT. LTD., ICL LINES PVT. LTD. AND JAI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM ICL LINES PVT. LTD. WAS RS. 200,00,00,000/ - . THE AO MADE ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 345,48,31,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION . T HE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AFFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS ED APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. SINCE, THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E LD. CIT (A) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 1 3 , THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 5 ITA NO. 1178/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN T HE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE ACT. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN QUESTION HOLDING THAT T HERE IS NO UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OR UNDISCLOSED OR UNACCOUNTED DEPOSIT TO MAKE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) READS AS UNDER: - 3.6 WHERE THE COMPANY HAD ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE SUBSCRIBERS TO THE SHARE CAPITAL, THE BURDEN IS SHIFTED TO THE DEPARTMENT, SO THAT SHARE SUBSCRIPTION COULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE COMPANY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE FUNDING WAS DONE BY THE COMPANY ITSELF. IN CIT V. DWARKADHISH INVESTMENT P . LTD. [2011] 330 ITR 298 (DELHI) , SPECIAL LEAVE WAS DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THIS DECISION FOLLOWING ITS OWN RULING IN LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. CASE (S U PRA). ON NEAR IDENTICAL FACTS, THE HIGH COURT, IN CIT V. WINSTRAL PETROCHEMICALS P. LTD. [ 2011] 330 ITR 603 (DELHI), DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SHARE CAPITAL BASED ADDITION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT IN LOVELY EXPORTS P. LTD.S CASE (SUPRA). 3.7 WH ERE THE CREDIT IS BY WAY OF SHARE CAPITAL AND THE ENQUIRY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE SHAREHOLDERS PROVING THAT THEY WERE IDENTIFIED PARTIES WITH ONE OF THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS BEING A GROUP COMPANY WITH ALL OTHERS HAVING THEIR OWN PERMANENT ACCO UNT NUMBERS, THE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE PROVED TO BE GENUINE AND THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE ON BALD OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE ON THE CONCURRENT FINDING OF THE FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY AND THE TRIBUNAL. THE HIGH COURT IN COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION IN CIT V. GANGOUR INVESTMENT LTD. [2011] 335 ITR 359 (DELHI) CITED SOME PRECEDENTS INCLUDING ONE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. LOVELY EXPORTS P. LTD. [2009] 319 ITR (ST.) 5. 6 ITA NO. 1178/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 3 .8 FURTHER, AN IMPORTANT DECISION OVER SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IS FOUND TO BE RELEVANT. WHERE THE SHARE CONTRIBUTION WAS MADE BY A COMPANY, THE IDENTITY OF WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON HIS OWN ENQUIRY FOUND THAT THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SUCH COMPANY, BUT ALL THE SAME DECIDED THAT THE SUBSCRIBER HAD NOT ESTABLISHED THE SOURCE OF SUCH AMOUNT. IT IS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. LOVELY EXPORTS P. LTD. [2009] 319 ITR (ST.) 5 DECIDED THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH ADDITION. THE HIGH COURT IN CIT V. K. C. FIBRES LTD. [2011] 332 ITR 481 (DELHI) FOUND THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AROSE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 3.9 WHERE SHARE APPLICATION MONEYS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE ADDRESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THEIR IDENTITY WAS NOT IN DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PLACE MATERIALS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS. THE HONOURABLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ARUNANA NDA TEXTILES P. LTD. [2011] 333 ITR 116 (KARN) DISMISSING THE APPEAL, AGREED WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT SHARE CONTRIBUTIONS COULD NOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE UNDER APPEAL. 3.10 THUS IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL NARRATION, VARIOUS REFERENCES AND JUDICIAL PROP OSITIONS I REACH TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION U/S 68 FOR THE SAKE OF ADDITION. THE APPELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT, IDENTITY, AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THE AO HAS HOWEVER MERELY DOUBTED THE CAPACITY BUT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REFER SINGLE EVIDENCE THAT SUCH SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS FROM UNKNOWN OR UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS FOUND BEYOND THAT SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM ESTABLISHED COMPAN IES DULY ASSESSED TO TAX IN MUMBAI AND THEIR REGULAR ASSESSMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN COMPLETED. THESE COMPANIES HAVE GIVEN SHARE APPLICATION MONEY 7 ITA NO. 1178/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 FROM BORROWINGS AND THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAS BEEN ADVANCED FROM BORROWED FUND S, HENCE IT BECOMES CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OR UNDISCLOSED OR UNACCOUNTED DEPOSIT. THEREFORE, SUCH BASELESS ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 5,00,00,000/ - U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT IS DELETED. 9. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT THE J BENCH OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED THE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) DELETE D THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WITH RESPECT TO THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM ICL LINES PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS. 200,0 0,00,000/ - DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. THE BENCH HAS POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSMENT OF THE SAID CONCERN WAS COMPLETED U/S 143 (3) AND THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 200,78,67,472/ - . THEREFORE, THE CIT (A) FOUND THE FINDINGS OF THE AO OF THE SAID CONCERN HAVING MEAGER INCOME AS BEING FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE FUNDS BORROWED BY THE SAID CONCERN WAS HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED BY THE A O , WHICH TRAVELLED UP TO THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 31.01.2018 HELD THAT THE SAID CR E D ITS HAVE BEEN DULY EXPLAINED. HENCE, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 ESTABLISHES THAT THE SOURCE OF F UNDS AVAILABLE WITH ICL LINES TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT IN THE SHARE APPL I C AT I O N MONEY O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE CONCLUDING PARA OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDERS READS AS UNDER: - BEFORE PARING, WE MAY ALSO REFER TO THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE REVENUE IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAJOR METAL LTD. (SUPRA). IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE SAID JUDGMENT TO SAY THAT THE IMPUGNED CREDITS HAVE NOT BEEN APPROPRIATELY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 68 OF THE ACT. WE HAVE C AREFULLY PERUSED THE SAID JUDGMENT AND FIND THAT THE SAME IS 8 ITA NO. 1178/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEFORE US. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, NO DOUBT THE ISSUE RELATED TO INVOKING OF SEC. 68 OF THE ACT QUA THE CREDITS B Y WAY OF SUBSCRIPTION TO THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE THEREIN. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ESPECIALLY NOTED THAT THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAD CONSIDERED ALL THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE MATERIAL WHICH HAD A BEARING ON THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND FINA NCIAL STANDING OF THE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES AND NONE OF THEM WERE FOUND TO HAVE FINANCIAL STANDING AND CREDITWORTHINESS WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY MAKING OF INVESTMENTS IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE THEREIN. BASED ON SUCH FACTUAL FINDING OF THE SETTLEMENT C OMMISSION, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ULTIMATELY NOTED THAT THE CREDITS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE CREDIT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. I N PARTICULAR, IT WAS NOTED THAT ONLY A BLAND EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF CREDITS IN QUESTION, I.E. REALIZATION FROM DEBTORS OF THE ERSTWHILE FIRM WAS BEING ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY. THUS, WHAT EMERGES IS THAT THE JUDGM ENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAJOR METAL LTD. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN RENDERED IN THE BACKGROUND OF ITS OWN FACTS. QUITE CLEARLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSE E HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE O F FUNDS WITH THE THREE CREDITORS FOR INVESTING IN THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS APPROPRIATELY EXPLAINED AND JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE , ON FACTS, THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAJOR METAL LTD. (SUPRA) IS INAPP LICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 9 ITA NO. 1178/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 10. SINCE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE PRESENT CASE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE J BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ITA NO. 3199/MUM/2016 (SUPRA), AND SINCE THE DEPARTM ENT HAS NOT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ANY CONTRARY DECISION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) TO INTERFERE WITH. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISSED THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 2014 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH DECEMBER , 2018. SD/ - SD/ - ( R.C. SHARMA ) ( RAM LAL NEGI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 06 / 12 / 201 8 ALINDRA, PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI