Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9058 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
07-03-2017
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
20-12-2016
Assessment Year
1997-1998
Appeal Filed On
14-06-2012
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 1303 & 1304/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1996-97 & 1997-98) THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD NAVJIVAN TRUST BLDG., OFF. ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD APPELLANT VS. M/S. GOPAL IRON & STEEL CO. (GUJ) LTD., PLOT NO. 1401/2, GIDC KERALA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE TA. BAVLA, AHMEDABAD - 382220 RESPONDENT PAN: AAACG7013L /BY REVENUE : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR. D.R. /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI Y. K. BATRA, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 20.12.2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.03.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE TWO REVENUES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 19 96-97 & 1997- 98, ARISE AGAINST THE CIT(A)-VIII, AHMEDABADS COMM ON ORDER DATED 26.03.2012, PASSED IN APPEAL NOS. CIT(A)-VIII/ITO 4 (1)/766 & 767/09-10, REVERSING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION MAKING SECTION 68 ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.46,82,981 /- & RS.2,80,17,600/-; ITA NOS. 1303 & 1304/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. GOPAL IRON & STEEL CO. (GUJ.) LTD.) A.YS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 2 - RESPECTIVELY, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES STATE AT THE OU TSET THAT SOLE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE IN THE TWO INSTANT APPEALS IS ABOUT CORRECTNE SS OF THE ABOVESTATED SECTION 68 ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DELETED IN LOWER APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS. 3. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THIS IS SECOND ROUND OF PROCE EDINGS QUA THE ABOVESTATED SOLE ISSUE IN TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY MANUFACTURES IRON & STEEL ITEMS LIKE BEAMS, CHANNELS, ROUNDS AND ANGL ES ETC. IT RECEIVED PROMOTER QUOTA CONTRIBUTION OF RS.1,07,35,900/- FRO M 189 APPLICANTS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOU GHT TO KNOW ABOUT DETAILS, CONFIRMATIONS, PANS, SOURCE OF MONEY RECEI VED IN ABOVESTATED SHARE APPLICATIONS. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE PRODUCE D PHOTOCOPIES OF THE SAID 189 APPLICANTS FOLLOWED BY CONFIRMATION LETTERS, PA NS AS WELL AS INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS PERTAINING TO EIGHTEEN PARTI ES QUA SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.60.43LACS. IT FURTHER PLACED ON RECORD 26 APPLI CANTS CONFIRMATIONS INVOLVING SHARE CAPITAL AMOUNT OF RS.16,82,900/- WI THOUT ANY PROOF OF IDENTITY AS WELL AS GENUINENESS / CREDITWORTHINESS THEREOF. IT HOWEVER DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE OF THE REMAINING 145 PARTIES INVO LVING SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.30,10,000/-. THESE PARTIES PARTICULARS REVEALE D THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: I) CHEQUES DRAWN ON THE GUJARAT STATE CO.OP. BANK L TD., AHMEDABAD SR. NO. NAME CHEQUE NO. DATE. AMOUNT. 01 GANAPATBHAI A PATEL 689702 5.5.95 25000 AT KHER VA, TAL. PATADI, SNR 02 VINODCHAND V. PATEL 689703 5.5.95 25000 AT KHE RVA, TAL. PATADI, SNR 03 BHWRABHAI S.PATEI 689704 5.5.95 25000 AT KHERVA, TAL. PATADI SNR 04 JIVANBHAI L.PATEI 689705 5.5.95 25000 AT KHERV A, TAL. PATADI SNR 05 HARGOVINDBHAI C.PATEL 689706 5.5.95 25000 AT K HERVA, TAL. PATADI SNR 06 B;ALDEVBHAI P.PATEL 689707 5.5.95 25000 AT KHE RVA, TAL. PATADI SNR 07 CHAMANLAL V.PATEL 689708 5.5.95 25000 AT KHERV A, TAL. PATADI SNR 08 RAAANBHAI V.PATEL 689709 5.5.95 25000 AT NANA ANKEVALIYA, SNR 09 AASASATBHAI H.PAFTEL 689710 5.5.95 25000 AT NA NA ANKEVALIYA, SNR 10 HADHAVJI J PATEL 689711 5.5.95 25000 AT NANA A NKEVALIYA, SNR ITA NOS. 1303 & 1304/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. GOPAL IRON & STEEL CO. (GUJ.) LTD.) A.YS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 3 - 11 GHANSHYAKI K.PATEL 689712 5.5.95 25000 AT NANA ANKEVALIYA, SNR 12 MANAJFBHAI R.PATEL 689713 5.5.95 25000 AT DUDA PUR VAYA GALA, SNR 13 PARBHUBHAI D. PATEL 689714 5.5.95 25000 AT DU DAPUR VAYA GALA, SNR R. PATEL 689715 5.5.95 250 00 AT DUDAPUR VAYA GALA, SNR R. PATEL 689716 5.5.95 25000 AT DUDAPUR VA YA GALA, SNR D. PATEL 689717 5.5.95 25000 AT DUDAPUR VAY A GALA, SNR BHAI PATEL 689718 5.5.95 25000 AT NANA ANKEVA LIYA, SNR JI K. PATEL 689719 5.5.95 25000 AT NANA ANKEV ALIYA, SNR AGANBHAI M. PATEL 689720 5.5.95 25000 AT DUDHERAJ, WADHWAN SNR UVAN PATEL 689721 5.5.95 25000 AT DUDHERAJ, W ADHWAN SNR HARGOVINDBHAI C.PATEL 689748 6. 6.95 25000 AT KHERVA, TAL. PATADI SNR CHAMANBHAI PATHAK 689749 16.6.95 25000 AT K HERVA, TAL. PATADI SNR RAMESHBHAI C. PATEL 689750 16.6.95 25000 AT HARIPUR, TAL. DHAGADHRA BHAVNA R. PATHAK 689751 16.6.95 25000 A T HARIPUR, TAL. DHANGADHRA DAYALJIBHAI A PATEL 689770 28.6.95 25000 AT KHERVA, TAL. PATADI SNR MANSHUKH A PATEL 689771 28.6.95 25000 A T NANA ANKEVALIYA, SNR MAHADEVBHAI M. PATEL 689772 28.6.95 25000 AT N ANA ANKEVALIYA, SNR POPATBHAI M. PATEL 689773 28.6.95 25000 AT N ANA ANKEVALIYA, SNR GHANPATBHAI PATEL 689774 28.6.95 25000 AT NA NA ANKEVALIYA, SNR PRAHLADBHAI M. PATEL 689775 28.6.95 25000 AT NANA ANKEVALIYA, SNR BALDEVBHAI G. PATEL 689776 28.6.95 25000 AT NANA ANKEVALIYA, SNR HARGOVINDBHAI C. PATEL 689777 28.6.95 25000 AT NANA ANKEVALIYA, SNR ------------- TOTAL 800000 II) STATE BANK OF INDIA NAME CHEQUE NO. DATE AMT. RS. ADDRESS MANSINGH JUMBHAI SOLANKI 271459 19.1.96 49000 P.O. HADALA T.A.LIMBDI SURENDRANAGAR. UBHAI JEMBHAI SOLANKI 271460 19.1.96 49000 P.O. HA DALA DIST.ABAD DHANDUKA. VANTSIG KHUMANSING 271461 19.1.96 49000 T.A. DHAN DUKA, DIST.ABAD P.O. HADALA. ANSINGH JEMBHAI SOLANKI 271462 19.1.96 28000 ---- DO----- UBHAI JEMBHAI SOLANKI 271463 19.1.96 25000 T.A. DH ANDUKA, DIST.ABAD. BHAYBHAI L. BADARESH 562111 15.11.95 35000 MOHANK UNJ HATKESHWAR MAHADEV. BHUBHAI L. PATEL 562112 15.11.95 15000 MOHANKUNJ SOC. HATKESHWAR MAHADEV. BHAYBHAI L. BADARESH 562113 15.11.95 20000 MOHANK UNJ SOC. KHOKRA, ABAD. ----------------- 270000 =========== III) BANK OF BARODA NAME CHEQUE NO. DATE AMT. RS. ADDRESS LIPSINH J MAKWAN 242754 12.12.95 15000 AT. TALODG AM TA PRATIJ DIST. HIMATNAGAR. AGANBHAI K. PATEL 242755 12.12.95 40000 AT. TALOD GAM TA PRATIJ DIST. HIMATNAGAR. GARAMBHAI K PATEL 242756 12.12.95 40000 AT. TALOD GAM TA PRATIJ DIST. SK. JIBHAI N PATEL 242757 12.12.95 45000 AT. VAKRAPUR TA PRATIJ DIST. SK SHRATH N RAVAL 452984 20.10.95 17000 RF. SR. 11 - ALSINGH MAGANSINH RATHOD 452985 20.10.95 15000 R F. SR. 11- HRATH N RAVAL 452986 20.10.95 8000 RF. SR. 1 1- IPSINGH J. MAKWANA 452987 20.10.95 15000 AT TALO DGAM TA PRATIJ DIST. S.K. NKUMAR R PATEL 452988 20.10.95 17000 RF. SR. 11 - ANSINGH MAGANSINGH RATHOD 452990 20.10.95 18000 RF. SR. 11- NBHAI PATEL 452991 20.10.95 18000 C/O. SHRIJI EN GG. WORKS AT AHINDRA T.A. KALOL, ------------- DIST. PA NCHMAHAL 248000 ======= IV) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK: SN. NAME CHEQUE NO. DATE. AMT.RS. 1. AMBALAL PATEL 958839 16.05.95 18000 REFER SR. 4 2. A J VANCEHA 958840 16.05.95 17000 A/C4 DK PA RK BHATAN RD. SURAT 3. LABHUBEN A PATEL 958841 16.05.95 15000 REFER SR.4 4. PRABHUBHAI PATEL 958842 16.05.95 18000 REFER SR.4 5. BHAGWATIBEN PATEL 958844 16.05.95 10000 REFER SR.4 ITA NOS. 1303 & 1304/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. GOPAL IRON & STEEL CO. (GUJ.) LTD.) A.YS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 4 - 6. MADHUBEN PATLE 958845 16.05.95 10000 62, POON AMNAGAR BHATAN RD. SURAT 7. MANOHARBHAI JADA 958846 16.05.95 10000 AT & P O AMRALI TA. 8. MANOHARBHAI M PATEL 958847 16.05.95 15000 64, RANGNAGAR SOC. DIST. SURAT. 9. NARANBHAI PATEL 958848 16.05.95 10000 ------------- 123000 ======= 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED AFTER PERUSING THE ABOVE EXTRACTED DETAILS THAT DEMAND DRAFTS CORRESPONDING THERETO HA D BEEN PREPARED ON A SINGLE DATE IN SAME VERY BANK AND BRANCH FOLLOWED B Y CONTINUOUS NUMBERING THEREOF. HE CONDUCTED NECESSARY ENQUIRY WITH THE A BOVESTATED CO-OPERATIVE BANK AS WELL. THIS EXERCISE INTER ALIA REVEALED TH AT THE SAID PARTIES HAD OBTAINED DEMAND DRAFTS IN VIEW OF CASH PAYMENTS IN ASSESSEES NAME, RELEVANT TWELVE APPLICATION SLIPS SIGNATURES INCOR PORATED DIFFERED FROM THOSE IN SHARE APPLICATION FORMS AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT ONE PERSON SHRI RAMESHBHAI HAD PUT IN HIS SIGNATURES ON EIGHT OF TH EM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE SAID 3 2 APPLICATIONS HAD ALSO NOT BEEN SUBMITTED. HE THUS INFERRED THAT ONLY ONE PER SON HAD HANDED OVER TOTAL AMOUNT TO THE ABOVE STATED BANKER FOR PREPARING DEM AND DRAFTS IN DIFFERENT NAMES. HE FURTHER NOTICED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESS EES ABOVE APPLICANT HAD BEEN RESIDING IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF STATE WHEREAS T HEY HAD GOT PREPARED THEIR DEMAND DRAFTS AT WADHAWAN CITY BRANCH OF THE SUREND RANAGAR DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE BANK ONLY ON SPECIFIC DAY AND TIME WELL I N ORDER TO SUBMIT SHARE APPLICATIONS IN QUESTION. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER PREPARED THREE CATEGORIES OF ASSESSEES 189 SHARE APPLICANTS. FIRST ONE PERTAIN ED TO 18 SHARE APPLICANTS INVOLVING A SUM OF RS.60.43LACS HEREINABOVE WHOSE A LL THE RELEVANT DETAILS STOOD DULY FILED. HE ACCEPTED ASSESSEES EXPLANATI ON SINCE SUPPORTED BY RELEVANT PAN AND INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT DETAILS. HE HOWEVER INVOKED SECTION 68 OF THE ACT QUA THE REMAINING TWO CATEGOR IES OF 171 SHARE APPLICANTS I.E. THE SECOND CATEGORY OF 26 PARTIES W HEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD ITA NOS. 1303 & 1304/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. GOPAL IRON & STEEL CO. (GUJ.) LTD.) A.YS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 5 - FILED THEIR CONFIRMATIONS ONLY WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR GENUINENESS/CREDITWORTHINESS. THIS FOLLOWED THE TH IRD CATEGORY OF THE REMAINING 145 SHARE APPLICANTS NOT EVEN INVOLVING C ONFIRMATIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REITERATED HIS EARLIER OBSERVATIO NS TO TREAT THE CORRESPONDING SHARE APPLICATION AMOUNTS OF RS.16,82,900/- & RS.30 ,10,000/-; TOTALING TO RS.46,92,900/- AS UNEXPLAINED U/S.68 OF THE ACT IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.03.1999. 6. WE NOW ADVERT TO LATTER ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED SIMILAR UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION AMOUNT OF RS.2,80,17,600/- BY QUOTING ASSESSEES FAILURE IN S UBMITTING CONFIRMATIONS EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY. 7. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED SEPARATE APPEALS. THE CI T(A) DISPOSED OF THE SAME VIDE COMMON FIRST LOWER APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28.03.2001 TO ACCEPT ITS CONTENTIONS CHALLENGING THE ABOVE ADDITIONS AS FOLL OWS: 2.5 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I HAVE A LSO SEEN THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE DEC ISION RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SEEN FROM THE REC ORDS AVAILABLE THAT THE IDENTITY AND EXISTENCE OF THE VARIOUS SHAREHOLDERS, ARE PROVED A ND IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT M ADE OUT ANY CASE TO SUPPORT THE ADDITION EXCEPT OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NO T PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE HOLDERS AND THEIR CAPACITY TO BRING THE AMOUN T FOR APPLYING IN THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY. IT IS ALSO NOT THE A.O.S CASE THAT T HE APPELLANT HAS EARNED SUCH HUGE INCOME DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION TO ENABLE THE CO MPANY TO INVEST SUCH FUNDS IN THE SHARE CAPITAL IN NAME OF BENAMIDARS ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE COMPA NY DURING THE YEAR. I AM OF THE CONFIRMED VIEW THAT ONCE THE EXISTENCE AND IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IS NOT IN DOUBT, NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE CAPITAL COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF A COMPANY. THIS VIEW OF MINE IS AMPLY FOR TIFIED BY THE DECISION OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW AS CITED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE ME MORE PARTICULARLY THE DECISIONS OF FULL B ENCH OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOFIA FINANCE LTD. REPORTED IN 205 ITR 98 A ND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. STELLAR INVEST MENT LTD. REPORTED IN 164 CTR 287. MOST RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ITA NOS. 1303 & 1304/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. GOPAL IRON & STEEL CO. (GUJ.) LTD.) A.YS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 6 - CASE OF CIT VS. STELLAR INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA). I N WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHILE AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE THAT, INTER-ALIA, EVEN IF THE SUBSCRIBERS TO THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY ARE NOT FOUND TO BE GENUINE, THE AMOUNT COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ACCORD INGLY, THE ADDITIONS OF RS.46,92,900/- AND RS.2,80,17,600/- MADE U/S. 68 OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98 RESPECTIVELY O N ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE CAPITAL IS DELETED. 8. THE REVENUE FILED ITS APPEALS ITA NOS. 1557 & 15 59/AHD/2001 BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. A CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITS COMMON O RDER DATED 15.02.2008 RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE RELEVANT DETAILS ONLY IN COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR THE FIRST TIME SO FAR AS ITS PAPER BOOK INVOLVING PAGES 1 TO 178 WAS CONCERNED. IT ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FINALIZE AFRESH CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENTS. 9. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE FILED TAX APPEALS N OS. 2522 & 2523/2009 BEFORE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE MEAN TIME TOOK UP CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS. H E AGAIN SOUGHT NECESSARY DETAILS/EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEES REPLY CAME ON 15. 09.2009 INTER ALIA REITERATING ITS STAND IN FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS RIGHT FROM CIT(A)S ORDER TO TRIBUNALS DIRECTIONS. IT STATED THAT THE RELEV ANT DETAILS SOUGHT ALREADY FORMED PART OF RECORD. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN REITERAT ED ITS EARLIER SUBMISSIONS ON 08.11.2002 THAT RELEVANT SHARE APPLICATIONS DETA ILS HAD BEEN DULY PLACED ON RECORD. IT THEREAFTER SUBMITTED THE SHARE HOLDE R LIST IN QUESTION ALONG WITH ADDRESSES AND NUMBER OF SHARES. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ASKED IT TO REPRODUCE AT LEAST 10 SHARE HOLDERS PER DAY ALONG WITH IDENTI TY PROOF AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN EXPRESSED ITS INABILI TY TO PRODUCE THE ABOVESTATED SHARE HOLDERS. IT RATHER REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE SECTION 131 PROCESS. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ISSUE D SAID NOTICES TO 13 SHARE APPLICANTS ON TEST CHECK BASIS. ONLY TWO OF THEM S OUGHT FURTHER TIME. SEVEN ITA NOS. 1303 & 1304/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. GOPAL IRON & STEEL CO. (GUJ.) LTD.) A.YS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 7 - SHARE APPLICANTS DID NOT TURN UP. REMAINING FOUR S HARE APPLICANTS WERE NOT FOUND AT THEIR GIVEN ADDRESSES. ALL THIS MADE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPRESS STRONG DOUBT OVER IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT OF ITS SHARE APPL ICATION MONEY PERTAINING TO BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION. HE THUS INV OKED SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ONCE AGAIN TO REITERATE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS IN C ONSEQUENTIAL ROUND OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL. 10. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS SEPARATE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 29.01.2010. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN T HE MEANT TIME DECIDED ITS TAX APPEALS (SUPRA) ON 08.02.2010 CHALLENGING TRIBU NALS REMAND ORDER IN FIRST ROUND SO AS TO DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO ADJUDICAT E ASSESSEES APPEALS PENDING IN CONSEQUENTIAL ROUND BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4. THE APPELLANT'S GRIEVANCE IS ONLY AGAINST THE S ETTING ASIDE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND REMANDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DE TAILS FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE CIT(A) REGARDING THE LIST OF SHAREHOLDER S UP TO ALLOTMENT APPEARING AT PAGES 1 TO 178 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THES E DETAILS WERE FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE CIT(A). ON THIS BASIS THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE VERIFICATION OF THESE DOCUMENTS ARE REQUI RED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO BOTH THE PARTIES, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE SET ASIDE AND DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENTS AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE DOCUMENTS WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY SUBMIT BEFORE HIM. 5. THE VERY PREMISES OR FOUNDATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE ORDER, SEEMS TO BE ERRONEOUS, AS THE LIS T OF SHAREHOLDERS UP TO ALLOTMENT APPEARING AT PAGES 1 TO 178 OF THE PAPER BOOK WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO AND IT WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR T HE FIRST TIME. THESE DETAILS WERE VERY MUCH BEFORE THE AO AND HE HAS PAS SED THE ORDER CONSIDERING THE SAID DETAILS. HENCE THE TRIBUNAL HA S ERRED IN MAKING THIS OBSERVATION AND AFTER MAKING SUCH OBSERVATIONS, SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT. NORMALLY THE COURT WOULD NOT HAVE INTERFERED IN THE ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE PR ESENT CASE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO BE DIRECTED TO DECIDE IT AFRESH. HOWEVE R, LOOKING TO THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE AFTER T HE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED ITA NOS. 1303 & 1304/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. GOPAL IRON & STEEL CO. (GUJ.) LTD.) A.YS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 8 - THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE COURT WOULD NOT INTERFERE I N THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS PURSUANT TO THE SAID ORDER, THE AO HAS ALREADY FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT AGAINST WHICH THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THOSE APPEALS ARE PENDING. 6. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WITHOUT INTERFERING IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, WE DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL S WHICH ARE PENDING BEFORE HIM AGAINST FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED B Y THE AO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE APEX COURT'S ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. STELLER INVESTMENT LT D. 2001 (201) ITR 263 AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V . M/S LOVELY EXPORT (PRIVATE) LIMITED PASSED BY THE APEX COURT ON 11.1.2008 IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 11993 OF 2007. 7. WE ARE AT PAINS TO POINT OUT THAT ON A WRONG PRE MISES THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE DETAILS WERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND AFTER CONSIDERING THESE DETAILS, THE TRIBUNAL O UGHT TO HAVE PASSED THE ORDER ON MERITS. THE SHORTCUT ADOPTED BY THE TRIBUN AL HAS GIVEN FURTHER RISE TO THE LITIGATION. BE THAT AS IT MAY, NOW THE CIT (A) IS EXPECTED TO DECIDE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSSESSEE BEFORE HI M IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HON'BLE APEX COURT'S DECISIONS. 11. WE PROCEED FURTHER TO NOTICE THAT THE CIT(A) HA S THEREAFTER ACCEPTED ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 11. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE AUTHO RITIES (ITAT, AHMEDABAD, AND GUJARAT HIGH COURT,) AND A/SO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIO NS AND PAPER-BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. IT APPEARS THAT TH E APPELLANT'S A.R. HAS FILED A DETAILED PAPER BOOK AS WAS FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT AND THE SAME HAS BEEN PERUSED BY ME IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISS IONS. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT'S OR DER DATED 08-02-201C RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) )WIT H A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE HON'BLE APEX COURT'S DECISIONS THE HIGH COURT HAS REFERRED TO THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. STELLER INVESTMENT LTD, (2001) 251 ITR 263 AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX V. M/S. LOVELY EXPORT ( PVT.) LIMITED PASSED BY THE APEX COURT ON 11-1-2008 IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APP EAL (C) NO. 11993 OF 2007. 11.1. IT IS SEEN THAT CIT(A) I, AHMADABAD DECIDING THE ORIGINAL APPEAL HAS HELD IN HIS ORDER DATED 3-4-2001 AS UNDER- 'IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS AVAILABLE THAT THE IDENTITY AND EXISTENCE OF THE VARIOUS SHAREHOLDERS ARE PROVED AND IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE TO SUPPORT THE ADDITION EXCEPT OBSERVING THAT THE A PPELLANT HAS NOT PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THEIR CAPACITY TO BRING THE AMOUNT FOR APPLYING IN THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY. IT IS A/SO N OT THE A.O.'S CASE THAT THE ITA NOS. 1303 & 1304/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. GOPAL IRON & STEEL CO. (GUJ.) LTD.) A.YS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 9 - APPELLANT HAS EARNED SUCH HUGE INCOME DURING THE YE AR IN QUESTION TO ENABLE THE COMPANY TO INVEST SUCH FUNDS IN THE SHARE CAPITAL I N NAME OF BENAMIDARS ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT NO BUSINESS AC TIVITY HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR. I AM OF THE CONFIRMED VIEW THAT ONCE THE EXISTENCE AND IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IS NOT IN DOUBT, NO AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE CAPITAL COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF A COMPA NY. THIS VIEW OF MINE IS AMPLY FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW AS CITED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE ME MORE PARTICULARL Y THE DECISIONS OF FULL BENCH OF DELHI HIGH COURT. IN THE CASE OF SOFIA FINANCE LTD. REPORTED IN 205 ITR 98 AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. STELLAR INVESTMENT LTD. REPORTED IN 164 CTR 287. MOST RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. STELLA R INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA). IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WHILE AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSE E THAT, INTER-ALIA, EVEN IF THE SUBSCRIBERS TO THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY ARE NOT FOUND TO BE GENUINE, THE AMOUNT COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ASSESSEE COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 46,92,9007- AND R S. 2,80,17,6007- MADE U/S. 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-9 7 AND 1997-98 RESPECTIVELY ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE CAPITAL IS DELETED.' 11.2. THE /TAT, AHMEDABAD, HAS DIRECTED THE AC TO V ERIFY THE CREDITORS. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO AND A/SO SUB MITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE A.O. HAD ISSUED SUMMONS TO AS MANY AS 13 PERSON S, AFTER THE ASSESSEE'S LETTER DATED 21-12-2009. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT MENTIONED ANYW HERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (I) THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE SUMMO NS TO THOSE PARTIES AND (II) THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS ON THEM, AS COULD BE SEEN FROM PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDE R APPEAL. BOTH THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED ON 31-12-2009. T HEREFORE, IT IS NOT EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT REASONABLE TIME WAS GIVEN TO THOSE PARTIES. THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THE GROUNDS RELATING TO THE RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY AND THEREFORE, LEGALITY/VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE RS UNDER APPEAL HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED. ALTHOUGH THE APEX COURT OF THE COUNTRY HAS LAID DOWN THE LAW ON THE SUBJECT, WHICH IS APPARENTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE APPEL LANT COMPANY, THE LD. A.O. HAD CHOSEN TO IGNORE THOSE DECISIONS AND FOLLOW THE OLD LINE OF APPROACH IN SUCH MATTERS RELATING TO THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, IR RESPECTIVE OF ANY CONSIDERATION TO THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY WAS A NEW COMPANY IN T HOSE YEARS, WHICH HAD NOT EVEN COMMENCED THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THERE AP PEARS TO BE AN APPROACH OF 'ERRING ON THE SAFE SIDE' ON THE PART OF THE A.O. 11.3. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSMENTS WERE SET ASIDE BY TH E ITAT IN THE YEAR 2008, IT WOULD APPEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE HEA RING IN THIS CASE WAS TAKEN UP ONLY IN THE SECOND HALF OF 2009 AND THE ASSESSMENTS WERE TO BE FINALIZED BEFORE 31- 12-2009. AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND, THE FOLLOWING REM ARKS OF THE A.O. ABOUT THE SO- CALLED RANDOM VERIFICATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE NOT JUSTIFIABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO H AS NOT MADE HIS CASE OF BOGUS CREDITORS AS HE HAS NOT ENQUIRED THE CREDITORS AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION WITHOUT ANY CONCRETE FINDINGS. IT CAN BE- SAID THAT THE AO HAS. NOT MADE THE DESIRED EFFORT TO ENQUIRE THE CREDITORS AS DIRECTED BY THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT DISCUSSED AND ALSO NOT APPLIED/DISCUSS ED THE DECISION OF APEX COURT ITA NOS. 1303 & 1304/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. GOPAL IRON & STEEL CO. (GUJ.) LTD.) A.YS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 10 - IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. (200 8) 216 CTR (SC) 195, WHICH HAS HELD THAT 'CAN THE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BE REGA RDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT, 1961? WE FIND NO MERITS IN THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT I F THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS, WHOSE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO THE AO, THEN THE DEPARTMENT, IS FREE TO PROCEED TO REOPEN THEIR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HENC E, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY WITH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT.' 11.4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE ORDER OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT, THE RELEVANT CASE LAWS ON THE SUBJECT, THE DIRECTIONS OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND ON THE BASIS OF THE DECI SIONS OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASES OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. STELLER INVESTMENT LTD, (2001) 251 ITR 263 AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. M/S. LOVE LY EXPORT (PVT) LIMITED PASSED BY THE APEX COURT ON 11-1-2008 IN SPECIAL LE AVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.11993 OF 2007, I FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R . OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. I AM, THEREFORE, CONVINCED THAT THERE IS A BSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADDITION OF RS. 46,82,981/- MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 68 OF THE ACT FOR THE. A.Y. 1996- 97. I ALSO FIND THAT ADDITION OF RS. 2,80,17,600/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON SIMILAR GROUNDS FOR A.Y. 1997-98, WAS ALSO NOT CALLED FOR I N VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE CASE LAW ON THE S UBJECT. IN MY OPINION, THEREFORE, BOTH THE ABOVE ADDITIONS WERE NOT CALLED FOR. THE A. 0. IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ABOVE TWO ADDITIONS AND THE APPELLANT WOULD ACCORDINGLY GET THE RELIEF TO THAT EXTENT IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSM ENT YEARS. THIS LEAVES THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES REITERATING THEIR RE SPECTIVE STANDS IN SUPPORT AND AGAINST THE ABOVESTATED ADDITION OF UNE XPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.68 OF THE A CT. THE FIRST QUESTION RAISED BEFORE US IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSING OFFICERS LATTER ASSESSMENT ORDERS. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THEIR LORDSHIPS DIRE CTIONS CAME HEAVILY UPON THIS TRIBUNALS REMAND ORDER AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICERS CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN PASS ED AS PER LAW. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS PLEA. IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FINALIZED CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENTS DUR ING PENDENCY OF ASSESSEES TAX APPEALS, THEIR LORDSHIPS DID NOT REV ERSE THE ABOVE ASSESSMENTS. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RAT HER DIRECTED THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE ASSESSEES APPEALS PREFERRED AGAINST THE CON SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENTS IN ITA NOS. 1303 & 1304/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. GOPAL IRON & STEEL CO. (GUJ.) LTD.) A.YS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 11 - QUESTION. WE THUS OBSERVE THAT THE CONSEQUENTIAL A SSESSMENT IN QUESTION STAND VERY WELL VALIDATED EVEN IN HONBLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURTS ORDER. 13. THE NEXT CONTENTION RAISED BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS ON MERITS. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTS CIT (A)S COMMON ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE DELETING THE ADDITION IN QUESTION O F UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RE-AS SIMILATE RELEVANT FACTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED TO HAVE RECEIVED SHARE AP PLICATION MONEY IN QUESTION FROM TOTAL 189 APPLICANTS IN FORMER ASSESS MENT YEAR. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT 18 OF THEM QUA SHARE APPLICATION AMOU NT OF RS.60.43 LACS AS ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF THESE 18 PARTIES IN THE NAT URE OF PAN NOS. AND ASSESSMENT RECORDS STOOD VERY WELL PROVED. THE DIS PUTE IN THE INSTANT CASE RATHER PERTAINS TO THE REMAINING 171 SHARE APPLICAN TS. IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE THEIR RELEVANT DETAILS IN BOTH ROUNDS OF ASSESSMENTS. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL RELEVANT PARTICULAR S BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY SO AS TO DISCHARGE INITIAL ONUS IN ORDER TO PROVE IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF ITS CLAIM. WE HOWEVER FIND THAT THI S ASSERTION IS NOT SUPPORTED FROM THE CASE RECORDS. WE REPEAT THAT 14 5 SHARE APPLICANTS INVOLVING SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.30.10 LACS NEVER SAW ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL. REMAINING 26 APPLICANTS APPEARS TO HAVE FILED THEIR CONFIRMATIONS WHOSE VERACITY COULD NEVER BE PROVED AT ASSESSEES BEHEST . WE AGAIN WISH TO REPEAT AT THIS STAGE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS STRONG D OUBT OVER THE SAID SHARE APPLICANTS TO THE EFFECT THAT ALTHOUGH THEY RESIDE IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF STATE BUT THEIR DEMAND DRAFT APPLICATIONS MOVED BEFORE THE SU RENDRANAGAR CO- OPERATIVE BANK DISCLOSED A SINGLE DAY, DATE AND BRA NCH FOLLOWED BY THEIR ORDER IN DEFINED SEQUENCE AS EXTRACTED IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPH TO BE RAISING ENOUGH SUSPICION; HAS NOWHERE BEEN REBUTTED IN EITH ER LOWER APPELLATE ITA NOS. 1303 & 1304/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. GOPAL IRON & STEEL CO. (GUJ.) LTD.) A.YS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 12 - PROCEEDINGS OR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. WE RATHER FIN D THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GRA NT THE ASSESSEE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE ITS CASE. HE ACCEPTS ITS ARGU MENT ON THIS TECHNICAL ASPECT WITHOUT EVEN CONCLUDING AS TO HOW IT HAD PRO VED IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF ITS SHARE APPLICATION CLAIM IN ASSESSMENT OR LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 14. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE THEREAFTE R SEEKS TO QUOTE HONBLE APEX COURTS DECISION IN STELLER INVESTMENT LTD. & LOVELY EXPORTS LTD. CASES (SUPRA). HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTS DECISION IN CIT VS. NAV BHARAT DUPLEX LTD. (2013) 35 TAXMANN.COM 289 (ALL) OBSERVES THAT THE ABOVE STATED TWO PRECEDENTS APPLY ONLY IN CASE WHERE AN A SSESSEE PROVES IDENTITY OF ITS SHARE APPLICANTS IN QUESTION. HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN ITA NOS. 1018 & 1019/2011 CIT VS. N. R. PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD. DECID ED ON 22.11.2013 IS OF THE OPINION THAT MERE PRODUCTION OF PAN DETAILS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY OF A PERSON. HONBLE APEX COURT AFFIRMS T HE SAME IN ITS REPORTED ORDER 2015 (9) TMI 54 SC. WE PROCEED FURTHER T O NOTICE THAT HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.31/2013 ONASSIS AXLES PV T. LTD. VS. CIT DECIDED ON 13.02.2014 UPHOLDS THIS TRIBUNALS ORDER RESTORI NG ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDING MAKING SECTION 68 ADDITION OF SHARE APPLICA TION MONEY AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE CONCERNED SHARE APPLICANT S BELONGING TO DIFFERENT PLACES HAD GOT PREPARED THEIR PAY ORDERS ON THE SAM E WAY FALLING ON 29.06.2006. THEIR LORDSHIPS FURTHER CONSIDER THE A BOVE TWO APEX COURTS DECISIONS IN THE SAID JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THIS CASE LAW TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SAME IS VERY MUCH APPLICAB LE IN FACTS INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT APPEALS WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN A BLE TO PROVE EVEN IDENTITY OF ITS SHARE APPLICANTS. WE ALSO WISH TO OBSERVE T HAT ITS RELIANCE BEING PLACED ON DEMAND DRAFT APPLICATIONS IS FURTHER DEVOID OF M ERIT SINCE THE CONCERNED ITA NOS. 1303 & 1304/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. GOPAL IRON & STEEL CO. (GUJ.) LTD.) A.YS. 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 13 - BANK HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH KYC REQUIREMENTS BEF ORE ISSUING DEMAND DRAFTS IN QUESTION. WE ACCORDINGLY RESTORE ASSESSI NG OFFICERS FINDINGS AS NARRATED IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS TO REVERSE CIT(A) S CONCLUSION FORMING SUBJECT MATTER OF OUR INSTANT ADJUDICATION PERTAINI NG TO BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS RAISING SOLE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF SECTI ON 68 ADDITION IN QUESTION. THE REVENUES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND AS IDENTICALL Y PLEADED IN THE INSTANT APPEALS SUCCEEDS. 15. THESE TWO REVENUES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 07 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017.] SD/- SD/- ( MANISH BORAD ) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 07/03/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE 3 ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 45 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0
Mehul