M/s Patran Food Pvt. Ltd., Patiala V. ACIT, Patiala

ITA 15/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5225 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Section: 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.15/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) M/S PATRAN FOOD PVT. LTD., VS. THE D.C.I.T., FOCAL POINT, SAILWALA, CIRCLE PATIALA. PATRAN, DISTT. PATIALA. PAN: AACCP0853D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.04.2017 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), PATIALA DATED 14.10.2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.7,50,000/- APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED WHICH IS ARBITRARY & UNJUSTIF IED. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION ONLY ON SUSPICION AND SURMISES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL POSITION AS EXPLAINED TO HIM AND DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFI ED. 2 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF T HE CASE AND IS, THUS, UNTENABLE. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS RELATIN G TO ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AMOUNTING TO RS.7,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 4. BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE CASE ARE THAT DURIN G THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD S HOWN SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM SIX INVESTORS TO THE TUNE OF RS.25,50,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.7,50,000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BY REJECTING T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTME NT MADE BY THREE INVESTORS AS BELOW AND FOR THE REASON THAT THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS WAS NOT PROVED: S.NO. NAME OF THE SHARE APPLICANT SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ADDITION MADE .1 SHRI HARNEK SINGH S/O. SHRI PURAN SINGH, V. DAFTRIWALA, TEH. SAMANA. 3,00,000/- 3,00,000/- 2 SHRI HARBANS SINGH S/O. SHRI DEV SINGH, V. DAFTRIWALA, TEH. PATRAN. 3,50,000/- 3,50,000/- 3 SHRI DHIAN SINGH S/O. SHRI KASHMIR SINGH, V. GAFURPURA, TEH. SAMANA. 3,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 5. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHERE THE ASSESSEE MADE DETAILED SUBMISSI ONS REPRODUCED AT PARA 5.3 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER. BRIEFL Y PUT THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHA RE 3 APPLICANTS HAD BEEN PROVED BY DEMONSTRATING THAT TH E SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAD BEEN TENDERED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD CONFIRMED THE FACT OF APPLYING FOR SHARES ALONGWITH SOURCE OF SHARE APPLI CATION MONEY IN THEIR STATEMENTS RECORDED UNDER OATH UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE INDIVIDUALLY DEALT WITH CREDITWORTHINESS OF EACH OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS AND STATED THAT THE STATEMENTS OF THE SH ARE APPLICANTS, COPIES OF THEIR BANK PASSBOOK AND COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE COMMISSION AGENT THROUGH WHOM THEIR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS DISPOSED OFF DURING THE IM PUGNED YEAR AMPLY DEMONSTRATED THE AVAILABILITY OF SUFFICI ENT FUNDS WITH SHARE APPLICANTS FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN ASSE SSEE COMPANY. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS, WHO IN HIS REPL Y RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND EMPHASIZED THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD NOT BE EN PROVED AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE WAS JUSTIF IED. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE STATING THAT THE CREDITWOR THINESS OF THREE APPLICANTS HAD NOT BEEN PROVED SINCE THEIR STATEMENTS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN WH ICH THEY HAD STATED THAT THEY HAD TAKEN LANDS ON THEKA FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, HAD NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED B Y WAY OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS ) ALSO FOUND THAT THE CASH HAD BEEN DEPOSITED ON THE SAME DAY IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS ON WHICH 4 INVESTMENT THROUGH CHEQUE WAS MADE BY THE APPLICANT S IN ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ALSO F OUND THAT EVEN AS PER THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE COMMISS ION AGENT FURNISHED BY THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS PROOF OF THEIR SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, THERE WERE NO SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABL E WITH SHARE APPLICANTS ON THE DATE OF MAKING THE INVESTME NT. THUS AS PER THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) THE CREDITWOR THINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD NOT BEEN PROVED THUS WA RRANTING ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT INVESTED BY THEM UNDER SECTI ON 68 OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT (APPEALS ) AT PARA 5.5 OF HIS ORDER ARE AS UNDER: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE ALLEGED INVESTORS NAMELY SH. HARNEK SINGH, SH.HARBANS SI NGH & SH. DHIAN SINGH IN THEIR STATEMENTS, BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER, THE COPIES 'OF WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE M E, HAVE STATED THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN 10 ACRES, 10 ACRES AND 2 5 ACRES OF LAND RESPECTIVELY, ON THEKA (LAND TAKEN ON CONTRACT FOR CULTIVATION) BESIDES THEIR OWN FAMILY LAND MEASURIN G 6 ACRES, 8 ACRES AND 6 ACRES RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, TH EY HAVE NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CONTENTION REGARDING LAND TAKEN ON THEKA. ON GOING THROUGH THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE INVESTORS/SHAREHOLDERS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT RS.3,00 ,000/-, RS.3,50,000/- & RS.3 , 50,000/- RESPECTIVELY WERE DEPOSITED IN CASH IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS ON 081)8.2008 AND TH E SAME AMOUNTS WERE INVESTED THROUGH CHEQUE WITH THE APPEL LANT COMPANY ON THE SAME DAY. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THESE ALLE GED INVESTORS HAVE NEGLIGIBLE BALANCE IN THEIR ACCOUNTS BEFORE AND AFT ER THIS TRANSACTION. THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS ALSO SUBMITTED PHOTOCOPI ES OF ACCOUNT OF SH. HARNEK SINGH, SH. HARBANS SINGH &. S H. DHIAN SINGH AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF A COMMISSION AGENT NAM ELY M/S TELU RAM KARAM CHAND, PATRAN FOR THE F. Y. 2007-08 AND F .Y. 2008-09, 5 ON THE LETTER HEAD OF COMMISSION AGENT. EVEN IF IT IS BELIEVED THAT ALL THE THREE INVESTORS HAVE CHOSEN THE SAME COMMISSION AGENT FOR SELLING THEIR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, THE SALE PROCEE DS PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION OF INVESTMENT IN THE APPELLANT COMPANY DO NOT PROVE THEIR CAPACITY TO INVEST THE CLAIMED AMOUNTS IN THE SHARE CAPITAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN DUE CREDEN CE TO THE CLAIM OF THE INVESTORS TO THE EXTENT IT WAS JUSTIFIED. IN THEIR DEPOSITIONS BEFORE THE A.O. THE ALLEGED IN VESTORS HAVE STATED THAT THEY HAVE RESORTED TO INVESTMENT IN THE APPELLANT COMPANY 'WITH A VIEW TO EARN INCOME FROM THIS INVES TMENT'. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, THEY HAVE ADMITTED IN TH AT VERY STATEMENT THAT NO MONEY/INCOME HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THEM TILL DATE. 6. THEREAFTER, THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER RELYING ON VARI OUS JUDGEMENTS OF THE HIGH COURTS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING ADDITION U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLI CATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM THREE INVESTORS AS ABOVE. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW COM E UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARI NG BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD FULLY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE IDENTI TY, THE GENUINENESS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATE D THAT THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS, THE STATEM ENTS OF SHARE APPLICANTS CONFIRMING THE INVESTMENT AND THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE COMMISSION AGENT FROM WHOM CASH HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN LIEU OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SOLD BY TH E APPLICANTS AMPLY DEMONSTRATED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR 6 ATTENTION TO THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS IN CASE OF EACH OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS I.E. S/SHRI HARNEK SINGH, HARBANS SINGH AND DHYAN SINGH PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FROM PAGES 1 TO 17 AS UNDER: SR. NO. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS PAGE 1. COPY OF THE STATE MENT OF SH. HARNEK SINGH RECORDED ON 22.06.2011. 1 - 3 2. COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF SH. HARNEK SINGH. 4 3. COPIES OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF SH. HARNEK SINGH, AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF M/S TELU RAM KARAM CHAND, COMMISSION A GENTS FOR THE F. Y. 2007-08 AND 2008-09. 5-6 4. COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SH. HARBANS SINGH RECORDED ON 22.06.2011. 7 - 9 5. COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF SH. HARBANS SINGH. 10-11 6. COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SH. HARBANS SINGH, AS APP EARING IN THE BOOKS OF M/S TELU RAM KARAM CHAND, COMMISSION AGENT S FOR THE F. Y. 2008 - 09. 12 7. COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SH. DHIAN SINGH RECORDED O N 22.06.2011. 13 - 15 8. COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF SH. DHIAN SINGH, AS AP PEARING IN THE BOOKS OF M/S TELU RAM KARAM CHAND, COMMISSION AGENT S FOR THE F. Y. 2007-08 AND 2008-09. 16-17 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ARGUED THAT IN CASE OF OTHER SHARE APPLICANTS ALSO, THE FA CTS WERE IDENTICAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THEM WAS ALSO THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND THEY HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME IN TH EIR STATEMENTS U/S 131(1) OF THE ACT. COPIES OF THEIR B ANK STATEMENTS AND THEIR STATEMENTS RECORDED ON OATH WA S PLACED BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT NO ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE IN THOSE CASES. THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BLOW HOT AND COLD AT THE SAME TIME AND HAVIN G ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE REST OF THREE CASES, HE COULD NOT HAVE REJECTED THE EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF THE BALANCE THREE SHARE APPLICANTS AND MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME . 7 9. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) AND STATED THAT CLEA RLY THE SOURCE OF MAKING THE INVESTMENT BY THE SHARE APPLIC ANTS HAD NOT BEEN CATEGORICALLY PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND I T WAS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED THAT A S ON THE DATE OF MAKING INVESTMENT SUFFICIENT FUNDS WERE NOT AVAILABLE AND THE ADDITION MADE WAS, THEREFORE, JUS TIFIED. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND GONE THROUGH TH E DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS.7,50,000/- ON ACC OUNT OF THE FOLLOWING SHARE APPLICANTS: I) SHRI HARNEK SINGH RS.3,00,000/- II) SHRI HARBANS SINGH RS.3,50,000/- III) SHRI DHIAN SINGH RS.1,00,000/- 11. IN ALL THE THREE CASES THE ADDITION HAS BEEN M ADE FOR THE REASON THAT THE SOURCE OF MAKING THE INVEST MENT BY THE SHARE APPLICANTS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 12. WHILE THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS AND THE CONSEQUENT GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S TOOD ESTABLISHED BY VIRTUE OF THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFOR E THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS ABOVE, LD.DR ON THE BASIS OF T HE SAME 8 DOCUMENTS HAS CONTENTED THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS O F THE APPLICANTS IS NOT PROVED. 13. WE ARE PARTLY IN AGREEMENT WITH BOTH THE PARTI ES. IN ALL THE THREE CASES, UNDISPUTEDLY THE COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS OF SHARE APPLICANTS WERE FILED. IT IS A LSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY CHEQUE IN ASSE SSEE COMPANY IS PRECEDED BY CASH DEPOSITS OF IDENTICAL A MOUNT IN ALL THE THREE CASES. IN THE CASE OF SHRI HARNEK S INGH RS.3 LACS HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN CASH ON 8.8.2008 AND ON THE SAME DATE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN ASSESSEE COMP ANY. IN THE CASE OF SHRI HARBANS SINGH AGAIN, RS.3,50,0 00/- WERE FOUND DEPOSITED IN CASH ON 8.8.2008 AND ON THE SAME DATE IDENTICAL AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY. IN THE CASE OF SHRI DHIAN SINGH, RS.3 LA CS WERE FOUND DEPOSITED IN CASH ON 21.8.2008 ON WHICH DATE RS.3,00,100/- HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEE COMPAN Y. IN ALL THE THREE CASES STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED O F THE SAID PERSONS WHO HAVE ACCEPTED MAKING THE AFORESAID INVE STMENTS AND HAVE STATED THE SOURCE OF THE SAME AS BEING OUT OF THEIR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SOLD. AS EVIDENCE OF THE SOUR CE, COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE COMMISSION AGENT THROUGH WHOM AGRICU LTURAL PRODUCE WAS SOLD, M/S TELU RAM KARAM CHAND, HAS BEE N FILED. A PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE THR EE SHARE APPLICANTS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMMISSION AGENT DEMONSTRATES THE FOLLOWING: 1) IN THE CASE OF SHRI HARNEK SINGH THE STATEMENT SHOWS CASH RECEIVED OF RS.4,21,288/- ON 10.1.2008 9 AND RS.92,609/- ON 3.5.2008 WHILE THE INVESTMENT OF RS.3 LACS HAS BEEN MADE ON 8.8.2008. THE LD DR HAS NOT CONTOVERTED THIS FACT . CONSIDERING THIS FACT THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SHRI HARNEK SINGH , THE SHARE APPLICANT, HAD DULY DEMONSTRATED THE AVAILABI LITY OF SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE INVESTMENT. THE CIT(A) & THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE FIND, HAD TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ONLY THE CASH RECEIVED OF RS.92,609/- AND HAD FAILED TO CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,21,288/- RECEIVED ON 10.1.2008. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI HARN EK SINGH STOOD PROVED BY VIRTUE OF THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AGENT SHOWING AVAILABILITY OF SUFFICIENT FUNDS ON THE DATE OF MAKING INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEE S COMPANY COUPLED WITH THE STATEMENT OF SHRI HARNEK SINGH AFFIRMING THE INVESTMENT MADE IN ASSESSEE COMPANY AND EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF THE SAME AS BEING OUT OF HIS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SOLD. 2) IN THE CASE OF SHRI HARBANS SINGH, WE FIND THAT HIS COPY OF ACCOUNT WITH THE COMMISSION AGENT REVEA LS RECEIPT OF A SUM OF RS.3 LACS ON 10.11.2008 WHILE H IS BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.3,50,000/- ON 8.8.2008 AND INVESTMENT OF THE SAME IN ASSESSEE COMPANY ON THE SAME DATE. CLEARLY THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD DO NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE/AVAILABILITY OF SUFFICIENT FUNDS WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF 10 MAKING INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN THE CASE OF SHRI HARBANS SINGH THEREFORE WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WI TH THE LD. DR THAT THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF T HE SHARE APPLICANT AND ADDITION MADE TO THE EXTENT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY SHRI HARBANS SINGH IS, THEREFORE , CONFIRMED. 3) IN THE CASE OF SHRI DHIAN SINGH, THE COPY OF HI S ACCOUNT WITH THE COMMISSION AGENT M/S TELU RAM KARAM CHAND SHOWS CASH RECEIPT OF RS.2,70,857 ON 3.5.2008 WHILE THE BANK STATEMENT SHOWS CASH DEPOSI T OF RS.3,01,000/- ON 21.8.2008 WITH A CORRESPONDING TRANSFER OF THE SAME AS INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEE COMP ANY ON THE SAME DATE. IN THIS CASE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2 LACS HAS ACCEPTED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICAN T AND MADE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 1 LAC. CONSIDERING THE FACTS ON RECORD WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. DR THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN ASSESSEE COMPANY IS PROVED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS .2 LACS BY VIRTUE OF THE CASH RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF S ALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE CONFIRMED BY COPY OF ACCOUNT O F THE COMMISSION AGENT AND BALANCE ADDITION MADE, IS, THEREFORE, UPHELD. 14. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO TAKEN THE PLEADING BEFORE US THAT SHARE APPLICATION MONEY REC EIVED FROM THREE OTHER APPLICANTS WAS ACCEPTED AS GENUINE IN 11 IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEREFORE THE AO HAVING ACCEPTED GENUINENESS IN THREE OTHER CASES COULD NOT HAVE HELD THE IMPUGNED THREE SHARE APPLICATION AMOUNTS R ECEIVED AS INGENUINE. 15. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD.COUNSEL. AS HELD ABOVE BY US, SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,50,000/- HAS NOT BEEN PROVED TO BE GENUINE IN THE ABSENCE OF CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE A PPLICANTS TO MAKE THE SAME. THE SAME HAS BEEN HELD ON THE BA SIS OF FACTS ON RECORD. MERELY BECAUSE NO ADDITION HAS BE EN MADE IN THE CASE OF OTHER SHARE APPLICANTS IN ALLEGEDLY IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE THE REASON OR BASIS FOR DELETING THE ADDITION MADE IN THE CASE BEFORE US ,BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT SITUATION WHICH CALLS FOR MAKING AD DITION. EVEN OTHERWISE WE FIND THAT THE LD COUNSEL HAS ONLY PLACED COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS AND THE STATEMENTS RECORD ED OF THE OTHER SHARE APPLICANTS, WHICH IN OUR VIEW DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE FACTS WERE IDENTICAL IN ALL TH E CASES.WE THEREFORE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND REJECT THE SAME. 16. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF T HE CIT (APPEALS) MAKING ADDITION U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION RECEIVED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,50,000 A ND DELETE THE BALANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.3 LACS PERTAINING TO SH ARE APPLICATION MONEY INVESTED BY SHRI HARNEK SINGH. 12 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE, T HEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 11 TH APRIL, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH