Singtam Buildwell (P) Ltd, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1645/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9873 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2009
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTI
• Keywords: Onus to prove
• Section: 251

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.1645 /DEL/09 1/8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH I NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1645 /DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S SINGTAM BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., ITO, FLAT NO.1-04, 11 TH FLOOR, WARD-8(4), 89-NEHRU PLACE, N. DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO.AAJCS-7302-R APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. MONA MOHANTI, SR. DR. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA, AM: THIS IS AN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD CIT (A)-XI, NEW DELHI DATED 23.2.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER :- 1. THAT THE CIT(A)-XI, NEW DELHI HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.3,68,000/- U/S 68 ON MERE PROBABILITIES AND ASSUMPTIONS WITHOUT AN Y PROPER ENQUIRY IRRESPECTIVE OF ALL DETAILS AND PRIMA FACIE EVIDENC E PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) V, NEW DELHI GROSSLY ERRED ON F ACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN HOLDING THAT THE APPEL LANT COMPANY HAS NOT DISCHARGED ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LIA BILITY OF RS.3,68,000/- . I.T.A. NO.1645/DEL/09 2/8 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE NO.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR RS.6,85,84,025/- VIDE VARIOUS PURCHASE DEEDS. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY HAS SHOWN A LIABILITY AT RS.3,68,000/- IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS PAYABLE TO ONE SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THIS PE RSON WAS ISSUED SUMMON BY REGISTERED POST TO ATTEND PERSONALLY AND GIVEN EVID ENCE OR TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE TRAN SACTION BUT THIS PARTY DID NOT BOTHER TO COMPLY THE SUMMON NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE PROCEEDING WAS RECEIVED. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FURNISH ED THE CONFIRMATION OF THIS PERSON. THEREAFTER, IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER THAT ON VERIFICATION OF THE COPIES OF SALE DEEDS, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SELLER H AS CONFIRMED IN THE SALE DEED NO. 17299 THAT HE HAD RECEIVED FULL PAYMENT FROM THE BU YER I.E. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND NO BALANCE AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE BY THE AS SESSEE COMPANY. IT IS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN VIEW OF T HESE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SHOWN BOGUS LIABILITY IN THE B ALANCE SHEET AS THE AFORESAID SELLER COULD NOT PROVE THE TRANSACTION AS GENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS.3,68,000 /- U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY HOLDING IT AS UN-EXPLAINED CASH CREDIT . BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT (A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS AND NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE W AS AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION BUT THE SAME WAS REJECTED. WE FIND THAT COPY OF CONFIRMATION AND PURCHASE DEED IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE ALSO FIND THAT, BEFORE LD CIT(A) RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE FOLLOWIN G JUDGMENTS:- A) ITO V. A-ONE HOUSING COMPLEX LTD. 299 ITR 327. B) CIT V. ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. 159 ITR 78. C) KHANDELWAL CONSTRUCTIONS V. CIT 227 ITR 900 D) CIT V. SHRE BARKHA SYNTHETICS LTD. 270 ITR 477. . I.T.A. NO.1645/DEL/09 3/8 5. LD DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD DR AND H AVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD CIT(A ) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS PER PARA NO.4-6 OF THE ORDE R OF LD CIT(A) WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE O N BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. THE BASIC DISPUTE IN THIS CASE IS REGARD ING THE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES IN RESPECT OF T HE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. THE APPELLANT HAS REFERRED TO THE NAME OF DUCE PROPERTIES & SERVICES PVT. LTD. BUT HOW THAT PARTY IS INVOLVED I N THIS TRANSACTION IS NOT EXPLAINED. I HAVE SEEN THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BUT THERE IS NO MENTION OF NAME OF DUCE PROPERTIES & SERVICES PVT. LTD. THE PROPERTY TRANSACTION WAS BETWEEN THE APPELLANT COMPANY (THE PURCHASER) AND SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH (THE SELLER). IT WAS PURCHASED FOR A SUM OF RS.93,75,000/- WHICH WAS FULLY PAID TO SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH AS CONFI RMED BY HIM, IN THE SALE DEED. IN THE PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS NORMALLY THE STA MP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES ARE BORNE BY THE PURCHASER. SINCE REGISTRAT ION OF CONVEYANCE DEEDS FOR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS COMPULSORY BY LAW, THE PURCHASER, IN ORDER TO PROTECT IS RIGHTS GET THE DOCUMENTS REGIST ERED. SELLER IS CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY AN D NOT WITH PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY OR REGISTRATION CHARGES. EVEN FOR THE SA KE OF ARGUMENTS, HOW AND WHY THE PART EXPENSES FOR STAMP DUTY WERE PAID BY THE SELLER IS NOT EXPLAINED. IT IS NOTABLE THAT SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH IS AN ILLTERATE VILLAGER AND IT CAN NOT BE EXPECTED OF HIM TO BEAR SOME EXPENSES WH ICH HE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO. HOW WOULD HE CHASE A DELHI BASED COMPA NY TO RECOVER EXPENSES PAID BY HIM. THE SELLER IS INTERESTED IN G ETTING FULL VALUE OF ALE PRICE WHICH HE GOT AND CONFIRMED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED SIGNED BY HIM. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.,6,/-M T OWARDS STAMP DUTY WAS PAID BY SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH. SO FAR AS JUDICIAL DECI SIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE CONCERNED, THEY ARE ALL ON DIFFERENT FACTS MOSTLY DEALING WITH . I.T.A. NO.1645/DEL/09 4/8 SHARE CAPITAL. MOREOVER, IN THIS CASE INITIAL BURDE N TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF LIABILITY WAS ON APPELLANT WHICH IT DID NOT DISCHAR GE. ON THE OTHER HAND, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ENQUIRY BUT FAILED TO GE T PROPER RESPONSE. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE SO CALLED CONFIRM ATIONS FROM SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH. THEREFORE, I WILL ANALYSE THE SAID CONFIRMATION. FOR READY REFERENCE COPY OF THE SAME IS MADE PART OF THIS ORD ER AS ANNEXURE A. AS CAN BE SEEN THEY ARE IN FACT COPY OF AC COUNTS OF T HESE TWO PERSONS IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT COMPANY. IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH RS.90,07,000/- HAS BEEN SHOWN ON 213.2006 TOWARDS P URCHASE OF LAND AS PER SALE DEED 17299. THE EXACT NARRATION BELOW THE ENTRY IS BEING LAND PURCHASED AND AMOUNT PAYABLE TO DUCE PROPERTIES & S ERVICES PVT. LTD. ANOTHER ENTYR OF RS.3,68,000/- IS SHOWN ON THE SAME DATE AS PAYABLE TO SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH WRT THE SAME SALE DEED NO.17299. FROM THIS IT MAY BE SEEN THAT FIRSTLY THE RELEVANCE OF DUCE PROPERTY L TD. IS NOT CLEAR. FROM THE ENTRY IT APPEARS THAT PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FROM D UCE PROPERTY (AS THE AMOUNT IS SHOWN AS PAYABLE TO THAT COMPANY AS PER N ARRATION. SECONDLY, THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,68,000/- IS SHOWN TO BE PAYABLE TOWARDS THE SALE DEED NO.17299. IT MEANS THAT OUT OF RS.93,75,000/- (THI S IS THE TOTAL OF ACCOUNT) OF THE PRICE AS PER SALE DEED, AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,68 ,000/- WAS OUTSTANDING TO BE PAID TO SHRI SUKLHBIR SINGH. HOWEVER, THIS IS AGAINST THE FACTS NOTED IN THE SALE DEED. FOR READY REFERENCE A COPY OF SAL E DEED NO.17299 IS ALSO MADE PART OF THIS ORDER AS ANNEXURE B. NOWHERE IN THE ACCOUNT THERE IS ANY MENTION OF STAMP DUTY OR REGISTRATION CHARGE S BEING PAID BY SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH. IN FACT THE APPELLANT IN ITS EXPLANA TION (REPRODUCED IN PARS 3 ABOVE) HAS RIGHTLY STATED THAT THE COMPANY HAD IN CURRED LIABILITY OF RS.5,62,500/-AS STAMP DUTY ETC. ON PURCHASE OF PROP ERTY. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT RS.3,68,000/- IS PART OF THESE CHARGES. AS REGARDS SO CALLED CONFIRMATION OF THIS ACCOUNT B Y SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH BY PUTTING THEIR THUMB IMPRESSION, IT CANNOT BE TAK EN AT FACE VALUE AND . I.T.A. NO.1645/DEL/09 5/8 GENUINE FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON. FIRSTLY SHRI SUKH BIR SINGH IS AN ILLITERATE PERSONS WHO CANNOT SIGN HIS NAME EVEN IN HIJNDI. HE NCE HE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATION OF A FINANCI AL ACCOUNT THAT TOO MADE IN ENGLISH. SECONDLY, THE CONTENTS OF THE SAI D ACCOUNT ARE AGAINST THE FACTS RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED BECAUSE NO PART OF SALE PRICE OF RS.93,75,000/- REMAINED PAYABLE TO THE SELLER. THE PAYMENT TO SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH WAS MADE BY TWO CHEQUES I.E. CHEQUE N O.,000219 FOR RS.10,62,500/0 DATED 25.10.2005 AND CHEQUE NO.00064 7 FOR RS.83,12,500/-DATED 28.2.2006 BOTH DRAWN ON HDFC BA NK KG MARG. IT IS THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT FULL PAYMENT OF RS. 93,75,000 /- WAS MADE TO THE SELLER BY CHEQUE. HENCE, RS.3,68,000/- CANNOT BE PART OF L AND CONSIDERATION OF RS.93,75,00/- AND ACCORDINGLY THE CONFIRMATION IS F ACTUALLY INCORRECT EVEN IF IS SIGNED (BY OUTING THUMB IMPRESSION) BY THE SELLE R. THIRDLY, SINCE SHRIU SUKHBIR SINGH HAD ALREADY RECEIVED ENTIRE SALE PRIC E FOR HIS LAND, HE HAD NOTHING TO LOOSE IN PUTTING THUMB IMPRESSION ON THE CONFIRAMATION PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT WITHOUT EVEN UNDERSTANDI NG IT. IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO HOW HIS THUMP IMPRESSION WAS OBTAINED & WHETH ER IT IS GENUINELY HIS (IT IS NOT LEGIBLE IN THE CONFIRMATION SUBMITTED). FOURTHLY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS PAYMENT (EVEN IF PARTY) HAS MADE BY SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. COPY OF ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY CAN NOT BE TREATED AS INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE FOR THIS . IN FACT EVEN THE MODE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IS NOT EXPLAINED. THEREFOR E, THE CONFIRMATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS EVIDENCE SUPPORTING APPELLANT S EXPLANATION. THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH IN WHOSE NAME LIABILITY WAS SHOWN. AT THE COST OF REPETITION IT MAY BE MENT IONED THAT PRIMARY ONUS TO PRESENT THE CREDITOR FOR EXPLANATION IS ON THE APPELLANT. THE LIABILITY IN HIS NAME IS NOT JUSTIFIED ON FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD. IT IS QUITE UNUSUAL CLAIM CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THE LIABILITY WAS RIGHTLY T REATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS BOGUS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFOR E, ADDITION OF RS.3,68,000/- IS CONFIRMED. . I.T.A. NO.1645/DEL/09 6/8 7. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT LD CIT(A) HAS EXAMI NED THE FACT AND DECIDED, THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. WE FIN D THAT GENERALLY, PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IS THE LIABILITY OF THE PURCHASER AND TH E SAME IS BEING ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO BECAUSE AS PER THE ASSESSEE ALSO, THE STAMP DUTY ON PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IS THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE BEING THE PURCHASER AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SAME IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY INCLU DING THE STAMP DUTY IN THE COST OF LAND PURCHASED. NOW, THE DISPUTE IS REGARDI NG THIS FACT AS TO WHO PAID THESE AMOUNTS OF STAMP DUTY WITH REGARD TO THIS PUR CHASE. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH TO WHOM THE ASSESS EE HAS PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS.93.75 LAKHS AS PURCHASE CONSIDERATION BY WAY OF CHEQUE HAS FINANCED THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.3,68,000/- ENABLING THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE PURCHASE DEED THAT THE SELLER WILL MAKE THE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY AND THE BUYER WILL REIMBURSE THE SAME AFTERWARDS. NO AGREEMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD REGARDING THIS CONTENTION THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUCCEEDING YEAR. WE A RE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN SUPPORT OF THIS ABNORMAL CONTENTION THAT THE SELLER HAS FINANCED THE ASSESSEE FOR PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY CHARGES AS T HIS SO-CALLED CONFIRMATION CONTAINING ONE THUMB IMPRESSION IS NOT SUFFICIENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE REASONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH HAD FINANCED THE ASSESSEE FOR PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. IT IS ALSO NOT MENTIONED WHETHER THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID BY HIM IN CASH OR BY W AY OF CHEQUE. SUMMONS WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THIS PERSON WHICH WAS NOT COMPLIED BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PRODUCED HIM BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS CLAIM BUT THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RELATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH HIM ARE NOT GOOD AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE HIM. UNDE R THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS DISCUS SED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SATI SFY AND ESTABLISH THIS CLAIM THAT THE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY WAS MADE SHRI SUKHBI R SINGH ON BEHALF OF THE . I.T.A. NO.1645/DEL/09 7/8 ASSESSEE AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO IN TERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 8. REGARDING RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON VAR IOUS JUDGMENTS, WE FIND THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THESE JUDGMENTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF A- ONE HOUSING COMPLEX LTD. (SUPRA) DOES NOT SUPPORT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESEN T CASE. IN THAT CASE, THE ISSUE WAS REGARDING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WHICH W AS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AS NOTED BY T HE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI COURT RENDERED IN THE CAS E OF SOPHIA FINANCE LTD. AS REPORTED IN 113 CTR 472 (DEL.) AND SINCE THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFERENT, THESE JUDGMENTS ALSO DO NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PRESENT CASE. 9. NOW, WE CONSIDER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX CO URT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). IN TH AT CASE, CONFIRMATION WAS PROVIDED CONTAINING INDEX NUMBER OF THOSE CREDITORS . IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT THAT IT WAS IN KNOWLEDGE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CREDITORS WERE INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND THEIR INDEX NUMBERS WE RE FILED IN THE REVENUE RECORD. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE REVENUE, APAR T FROM ISSUING NOTICE U/S AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PURSUE THE MAT TER FURTHER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH, OF WHOM THE SAID CONFIRMATION IS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INCOME TAX ASSESSES BECAUSE WE FIND THAT NO GIR NO. OR PAN NO. IS MENTIONED IN THE SO-CALLED CONFIRMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE FEEL THAT THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT ALSO DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. NOW, WE CONSIDER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GAUHAT I HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF KHANDELWAL CONSTRUCTION (SUPRA). WE FIN D THAT IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO GIVEN GIR NO. OF THE CREDITORS INASMUCH AS THEY WERE ALSO ASSESSES UNDER THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HAS FOLL OWED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ORISSA C ORPORATION PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). SINCE, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE A PEX COURT RENDERED IN THE . I.T.A. NO.1645/DEL/09 8/8 CASE OF ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. DOES NOT SUPPO RT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE PRESENT CASE, FOR THE SAME REASON, THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ALSO DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 11. NOW, WE CONSIDER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE RAJAST HAN HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHREE BARKHA SYNTHETICS LTD. IN THI S CASE, THE DISPUTE WAS REGARDING RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDER ED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. STELLER INVESTMENT LTD. AS REPORTED IN 251 ITR 263 AND BY APPLYING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ORISS A CORPORATION PVT. LTD. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED GIR NO. PAN NO., AND CONFIRMATIONS OF THE INVESTORS, IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT NINE OUT OF TEN INVESTORS HAVE CONFIRMED THE FACT OF MAKING INVESTMENT AND THEY HAVE ALSO CONFIR MED THAT THEY WERE INCOME TAX ASSES AND THE MODE OF RECEIPT HAS BEEN THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ALLEGED CREDITOR IS NOT INCOME TA X ASSESSES AND THE MODE OF ALLEGED RECEIPT IS NOT CLEAR AND HE HAD NEITHER APP EARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND UN DER THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BL E RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED.. 13. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21ST AU GUST, 2009. SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL) (A.K. GARO DIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 21.8.2009. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI).