Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0574 (ITAT-RANCHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
10 month(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
02-03-2020
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
2015-2016
Appeal Filed On
02-05-2019
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( S .A. NO.01/RAN/2020 (ARISING OUT ITA NO.203/RAN/2019) / ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD. B/H PNB, NH-33, RAMGARH CANTT, RAMGARH [ PAN NO.AADCM 9547 Q ] V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE-2, 1 ST FLOOR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, RANCHI-834001 /APPLICANT .. / RESPONDENT ITA NO S . 203 WITH 225 / RAN / 201 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD. B/H PNB, NH-33, RAMGARH CANTT, RAMGARH [ PAN NO.AADCM 9547 Q ] & DCIT, CIIRCLE-2, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING (ANNEXE), 1 ST FLOOR, 5A MAIN ROAD, RANCHI V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE-2, 1 ST FLOOR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, RANCHI-834001 MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD., B/H PNB NH-33, RAMGARH ANT-829122 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI DEVESH PODDAR, ADVOCATE /BY REVENUE SHRI INDERJEET SINGH, CIT-DR ' /DATE OF HEARING 02-03-2020 ' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02 -03-2020 / O R D E R SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 2 PER BENCH:- THESE ASSESSEES AND REVENUES CROSS-APPEAL(S) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ARISE AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS)-RANCHIS COMMON ORDER DATED 01.03.2019 PASSED IN CASE NO.CIT (A), RANCHI/10182/2017-18 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILES PERUSED 2. BOTH PARTIES SUBMIT AT THE OUTSET THAT THE SOLE INTER CONNECTED ISSUE IN THESE CROSS-APPEAL(S) IS THAT OF SEC. 68 UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDITS ADDITION OF 23,33,31,180/- (SHARE CAPITAL / PREMIUM) AND UNSECU RED LOANS AMOUNT OF 436,85,914/-; RESPECTIVELY. CORRESPONDING ENTITY-WI SE DETAILS READ AS FOLLOWS:- NAME NATURE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE M/S RAUNAK ISPAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. SHARE CAPITAL 13,31,99,600/- M/S EXCLUSIVE INFRA PROJECT PVT. LTD. SHARE CAPITAL & UNSECURED LOAN + INTEREST 17,11,820/- 15,0,370 M/S TOLSARIYA VINIYOG PVT. LTD. SHARE CAPITAL & UNS ECURED LOAN + INTEREST 17,11,820/- 15,00,000/- M/S MOHENKA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. SHARE CAPITAL 1,20,72 0/- M/S NAGINA EXPORT AND FINVEST PVT. LTD. UNSECURED LOAN + INTEREST 18,00,000/- M/S LUPIN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD. UNSECURED LOAN + INTE REST 5,43,706/- M/S BHUTORIA ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. UNSECURED LOAN + INTEREST 19,23,728/- M/S ESCORT TRADELINK PVT LTD. UNSECURED LOAN + INTE REST 10,68,227/- 2. WE FIND DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THESE ENTITIES ARE PART OF RUNGTA GROUP ONLY AND THIS CLINCHING FACT HAS GON E UNREBETTED FROM THE REVENUE SIDE. COUPLE WITH THIS, THERE IS FURTHER NO QUARREL THAT ALL THE RELEVANT NOTICE(S) ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT STOOD DULY R ECEIVED / REPLIED FROM THESE GROUP ENTITIES SIDE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR. WE THERE FORE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT AN INSTANCE OF INVOLVEMENT OF ACCOMMODATION ENT RY PROVIDER(S) PER SE SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 3 SINCE ALL THESE INVESTORS AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE F ORM PART OF THE SAME GROUP ONLY. THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN ASSESSEES CASE ITSELF FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 INVOLVING ITA NO.268/RAN/2017 DECIDED ON 30.11.2018 HAS DECLINED REVENUES IDENTICAL STAND A S FOLLOWS:- 3. IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE LOAN MONEY RECEIVED AS UNEXPL AINED CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 154. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES HAVE INVESTED THE FOLLOWING AMO UNTS IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY: 1. NAGINA EXPORTS & FINVEST PVT LTD,. : RS. 4,83,0 0,000 2. TOLASARIYA VINIYOG PVT LTD. : RS. 4,36,00,000 3. LUPIN COMMODEAL PVT LTD. : RS. 4,14,00,000 4. JIT FINANCE LTD., : RS. 1,00,00,000 5. MOHANKA EXPORTS PVT LTD. : RS. 12,00,000 6. AMBIKA COMMERCE PVT LTD. : RS. 10,00,000 7. M.R.INFRADEV PVTD. : RS. 3,50,000 8. M.R.INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. : RS. 3,00,000 TOTAL: RS.14,61,50,000 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO F URNISH THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF COMPANIES MAKING INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPAN Y, COPY OF SHARE CERTIFICATE ISSUED, MINUTES OF MEETING & COMPANY OF FORM NO.2 F OR RELEVANT PERIOD, COPY OF AGM, COPY OF ELECTRICITY BILLS, QUANTITATIVE DETAIL S OF CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIALS. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE MEANTIME, INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS CAL LED FOR FROM THE PARTIES, WHO INVESTED IN THE ASSESSEES COMPANY. THE ASSESSING O FFICER OBSERVED FROM THE INFORMATION CALLED FROM THE INVESTMENT COMPANIES WA S NOT FURNISHED BY THEM AND, THEREFORE, HE SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE WHY TRANSACT IONS MADE WITH THESE COMPANIES SHOULD NOT BE DISBELIEVED AND DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALOK RUNGTA AND SHRI SHRI A SHISH RUNGTA IN JANUARY, 2016. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SAME, SHRI ALOK RUNGTA APPEARE D ON 7.1.2016, WHOSE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED PARTIALLY. THEREAFTER, A SUM MON WAS ISSUED TO SHRI ALOK RUNGTA ON 1.2.2016 FOR APPEARING ON 11.2.2016 BUT T HE SAME WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS TO SHRI SUDIP KUMAR SHAW AND MOHAMAD PYARE ON 12.1.2016 FOR COMPLIANCE ON 19.1.2 016 BUT THEY ALSO DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SUBSEQUENTLY, A COMMISSION WAS ISSUED TO THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) UNIT2(4), KOLKATA, ASK ING TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION MADE WITH VARIOUS PARTIES BY THE ASSESS EE. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) KOLKATA SUBMITTED THAT A SUMMON WAS ISSUED TO JEET FINANCE LTD., AND INSPECTOR OF THIS CHARGE WAS DEPUTED TO SERVE THE S AME. HOWEVER, THE INSPECTOR HAS REPORTED THAT IN THE SAID ADDRESS, NO COMPANY WAS F OUND IN THE NAME OF JEET FINANCE LTD. THE INSPECTOR INFORMED THAT IN RESPECT OF ADI ISPAT PVT. LTD., GIRIDIH, THE DIT(INV) UNIT-2(24), KOLKATA, INFORMED THAT THIS CO MPANY IS REGISTERED AT GIRIDIH, JHARKHAND. THEREFORE, ENQUIRY OF THIS COMPANY COULD NOT BE DONE. WITH REGARD TO REST OF THE CASES, IT WAS INFORMED THAT THE SUMMONS WERE ISSUED & SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A WRITTEN EXPLANAT ION ALONGWITH COPY OF IT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACC OUNT AND LEDGER COPY OF THE TRANSACTION MADE WITH M/S. MAA CHINNA MASTIKA CEMEN T & ISPAT PVT. LTD.. RANCHI AND SAME WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R PERUSAL & NECESSARY ACTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT PERSONAL APPEAR ANCE OF DIRECTOR WAS SOUGHT FOR SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 4 RECORDING THE STATEMENT BUT NO ONE APPEARED BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT WHEN INSPECTOR OF THIS CHARGE WAS SEN T TO THE ADDRESS TO SEE WHETHER THE OFFICE OF THE SAID COMPANY IS FUNCTIONAL AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS OR NOT, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SAID ADDRESS WAS JUST FOR RECEIVING THE LE TTER & A PERSON WHO MIGHT BE A PEON WAS PRESENT TO RECEIVE THE LETTER, AND NO SUBSTANTI AL ACTIVITY WAS FOUND THERE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT SAID C OMPANY IS A SHELL COMPANY & IS ONLY PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FOR ENROOTING AS SESSEE'S OWN INCOME THROUGH DIFFERENT CHANNELS. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME, HE OBSE RVED THAT INCOME AND TURNOVER DECLARED BY ALL THESE SHELL COMPANIES, NAMELY, NAGI NA EXPORTS AND FINEST PVT LTD., IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 WAS ONLY RS.26,177/-, AMBIK A COMMERCE PVT LTD RS.13,060/-, ESCORTS TRADLINK PVT ITD RS 97 950/- , LUPIN COMMODEAL PVT LTD RS.43,439, MR INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD RS.230/-, MR IN FRADEV PVT LTD RS.1290, AND TOLASARIYA VINIYOG PVT LTD., 44,230/-. HE ALSO OBSE RVED THAT ON PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET SHOWS THAT THESE INVESTING COMPANIES DO NOT H AVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS TO INVEST SUBSTANTIALLY IN ANY COMPANY. FURTHER, THE D IRECTORS WHO WERE SUMMONED BY DIT(INV) UNIT-2(4), KOLKATA AS WELL AS BY HIM DID N OT APPEAR BEFORE THE RESPECTIVE AUTHORITY TO EVADE CROSS-EXAMINATION & TO BRING THE TRUTH ON SURFACE. ONCE THE NOTICE U/S. 131 IS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE/WITNESS AND HE D ID NOT APPEAR, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PROOF THEIR IDENTITY AND CAPACITY TO AD VANCE MONEY & GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ONUS ON ASSESSEE WAS NOT DISCHARGED AS HE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS TO WHOM SUMMO NS WERE ISSUED. MERE FILING OF INCOME RETURN BY THE CREDITORS IS NOT ENOUGH TO PRO VE THE GENUINENESS OF CASH CREDIT APPEARING IN ASSESSEE'S BOOK. FOR THIS, HE RELIED O N THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CORLAY TRADING COMPANY LTD., (1999) 7 DTC 442 (CAL). SIMILARLY, HE RELIED ON TH E DECISION OF HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF V VENKAT REDDY & COMPANY VS DCIT (2002) 26 DCT 458 (HYD), WHEREIN, I T WAS HELD THAT MERE FILING OF CONFIRMATORY LETTER TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF TH E CREDITORS IS NOT ENOUGH & IT CANNOT BE SAID THE ONUS WAS DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH EREFORE, HE HELD THAT INVESTMENTS MADE BY THESE COMPANIES ARE NOT CONSIDE RED GENUINE AS THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS NOT SATISFACTORY IN THIS REGARD. HENCE, HE PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEES OWN MONEY WAS ROUTED THROUGH CIRCUITOUS ROUTE BY THESE COMPANIES AND HENCE, ADDED RS.14,61,50,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS INFORM FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 6. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.10 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ONE THING THAT CAME OUT CLEAR LY FROM THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ALOK RUNGTA WAS THAT HE WAS UNAWARE OF THE ACT IVITIES OF THE COMPANIES WHICH HAD EXTENDED LOANS TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY E VEN THOUGH HE WAS A DIRECTOR IN SEVERAL OF THESE COMPANIES AS WELL. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE AO WAS CONSIDERATE ENOUGH TO SUSPEND THE STATEMENT TO ALLOW SHRI RUNGTA TO ATTEND TO SOME URGENT BUSINESS REQUIREMENT. SHRI RU NGTA STATED THAT HE WOULD PRESENT HIMSELF FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE STA TEMENT IN THE SECOND WEEK OF FEBRUARY BUT HE DID NOT ABIDE BY THE STATEMENT M ADE ON OATH. THE AO ISSUED ANOTHER SUMMON DATED 1.2.2016 REQUIRING THE APPELLANT TO PRESENT HIMSELF ON 11.2.2016 BUT THIS SUMMON HAS NOT COMPLI ED WITH. 5.11 THE APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO MAKE OUT A CASE THAT TI LL 15.2.2016 HE WAS BUSY WITH OTHER COURT MATTERS AND THUS WAS NOT ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE SUMMONS. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THIS DE TAIL WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO, HOWEVER, NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION WAS ISSUED BY THE AO BEFORE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELL ANT IS SPECIOUS. THE APPELLANT IS SHUNNING ALL RESPONSIBILITIES FROM HIS SIDE AND SHIFTING ALL THE BURDEN ON TO THE AO. IT WAS THE APPELLANT WHO GOT H IS STATEMENT TEMPORARILY SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 5 SUSPENDED STATING SOME URGENT COURT MATTER IN DELHI . HE STATED THAT HE WOULD PRESENT HIMSELF IN THE SECOND WEEK OF FEBRUARY. THI S STATEMENT WAS MADE ON OATH BEFORE THE AO U/S.131 OF THE ACT. THE APPELLAN T DID NOT RESPOND TO THE SECOND SUMMON. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 3 0.3.2016. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT MA DE ANY EFFORT TO PRESENT HIMSELF BEFORE THE AO FOR THE COMPLETION OF HIS INC OMPLETE STATEMENT AFTER 15.2.2016 AND BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAPPENED AFTER A GAP OF ONE AND A HALF MONTHS. APPE LLANTS CONTENTION IS THAT ALL RESPONSIBILITY LAY ON THE AO AND THAT HE WAS AB SOLVED OF ALL LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT DELIBERATELY SHIED AWAY FROM MAKING A STATEMENT BEFORE THE AO AND THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN DRAWING ADV ERSE CONCLUSIONS. 5.12 SIMILARLY, BOTH SUDIP K SHAW AND SRI MD PYARE DID NOT ATTEND IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMON. WHILE RECORDING HIS STATEME NT SHRI ALOK RUNGTA HAD STATED THAT BOTH WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE GROUP COMPAN IES BELONGING TO THE RUNGTA GROUP. HOWEVER, BOTH WERE SHOWN AS DIRECTORS . 5.13 IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE COMPANIES EXTENDING LOA NS TO THE APPELLANT COMPANIES HAD VERY MEAGRE INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THIS ASSERTION OF THE AO STATING THAT MEAGRE INCOME COUL D BE NO PROOF OF A COMPANY BEING SHELL COMPANY. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE A PPELLANT IS WELL FOUNDED AS A STAND ALONE ARGUMENT. IN CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE COULD BE NO CLINCHING EVIDENCE. THE CASE HAS TO BE VIEWED BY PUTTING ALL THE EVIDENCE TOGETHER TO SEE THE GESTALT EFFECT WHERE THE WHOLE IS MORE THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS. 5.14 THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN A RECENT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PR CIT VS BIKRAM SINGH ITS 55/2017 DATED 25.8.2017 HAS HELD: THE TRANSACTION IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE YET ANOTH ER EXAMPLE OF THE CONSTANT USE OF THE DECEPTION OF LOAN ENTRIES T O BRING UNACCOUNTED MONEY INTO BANKING CHANNELS. THIS DEVIC E OF LOAN ENTRIES CONTINUES TO PLAGUE THE LEGITIMATE ECONOMY OF OUR COUNTRY. AS SEEN FROM THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE, THE TRANSACTIONS HEREIN CLEARLY DO NOT INSPIRE CONFIDENCE AS BEING G ENUINE AND ARE SHROUDED IN MYSTERY, AS TO WHY THE SO CALLED CREDIT ORS WOULD LEND SUCH HUGE UNSECURED, INTEREST FREE LOANS-THAT TOO WITHOUT ANY AGREEMENT. 5.15 IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT ALL THE SAID COMPANIES WERE LOCATED AT A SINGLE ADDRESS WHERE THERE WAS ONLY ONE PERSON TO RECEIVE LETTERS. NONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANIES WHICH HAD EXTENDED LOANS TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY APPEAR BEFORE THE DDIT (INV), KOLKATA. FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE NET (EXTRACTED BELOW) ALL THESE CO MPANIES IN WHICH SHRI ALOK RUNGTA IS A DIRECTOR FUNCTION FROM SINGLE ROOM DI AMOND PRESTIGE, ROOM NO.310 41A, AJC BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA, WB-700017 IN LUPIN COMMODEAL P. LTD. LUPIN COMMODEAL PVT LTD., IS A PRIVATE INCORPORATED ON 12 TH JULY, 1994. IT IS CLASSIFIED AS NON-GOVT. COMPANY A ND IS REGISTERED AT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KOLKATA. DIRECTORS OF LUPIN COMMODEAL PVT LTD., ARE ALOK RUNGT A, ASHISH RUNGTA. LUPIN COMMODEAL PVT LTD., CORPORATE IDENTIFICATION N UMBER SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 6 IS (CIN) U51109 WB 1994 PTC 063901 AND ITS REGISTRA TION NUMBER IS 63901. ITS EMAIL ADDRESS IS RUNGTARAMGARH @GMAIL.COM AND ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS IS DIAMOND PRE STIGE, ROOM NO.310 41 AJC BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-700017 IN PALAK PROJECT P LTD PALAK PROJECTS PVT LTD., IS A PRIVATE INCORPORATED ON 5 TH SEPT 2008. IT IS CLASSIFIED AS NON-GOVT. COMPANY AND IS REGISTERED AT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KOLKATA DIRECTOR OF PALAK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ARE ALOK RUN GTA, ASHISH RUNGTA PALAK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED'S CORPORATE IDENTIFICAT ION NUMBER IS (CIN) U45400WB2008PTC129137 AND ITS REGISTRATION NUMBER IS 129137. ITS EMAIL ADDRESS IS RUNGTARAMGARH@GMAIL.COM AND ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS IS DIAMOND PRESTIGE, ROOM NO.310, 41A, A.J.C., BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA, WB-700017 IN NAGINA EXPORTS FINVEST P. LTD NAGINA EXPORTS & FINVEST PVT. LTD. IS A PRIVATE INCORPO RATED ON 10 MAY 1991. IT IS CLASSIFIED AS NON-GOVT COMPAN Y AND IS REGISTERED AT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KOLKATA. DIRECTORS OF NAGINA EXPORTS & FINVEST PVT. LTD. ARE ALOK RUNGTA, ASHISH RUNGTA,. NAGINA EXPORTS & FINVEST PVT. LTD.'S CORPORATE IDENTIF ICATION NUMBER IS (CIN) U51909WB1991PTC051710 AND ITS REGISTRATION NUMBER IS 51710. ITS EMAIL ADDRESS ISJIPLRAMGARH@GMAIL.COM AND ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS IS DIAMOND PRESTIGE, ROOM NO.310, 41 A, A.J.C., BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA WB 700017 IN ESCORTS TRADELINK P. LTD. ESCORTS TRADELINK PVT. LTD. IS A PRIVATE INCORPORATED ON 28 MARCH, 1996. IT IS CLASSIFIED AS NON-GOVT COMPANY A ND IS REGISTERED AT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KOLKATA. DIRECTORS OF ESCORTS TRADELINK PVT. LTD. ARE ALOK RUNG TA, ASHISH RUNGTA. ESCORTS TRADELINK PVT. LTD.'S CORPORATE IDENTIFICATI ON NUMBER IS (CIN) U51909WB1996PTC078723 AND ITS REGISTRATION NUMBER IS 78723. ITS EMAIL ADDRESS IS RUNGTARAMGARH@GMAIL.COM AND ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS IS DIAMOND PRESTIGE, ROOM NO.310, 41A, A.J.C., BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA, WB-700017 IN AMBIKA COMMERCE P LTD AMBICA COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED IS A PRIVATE INCORPORA TED ON 16TH FEBRUARY, 2009. IT IS CLASSIFIED AS NON-GOV T COMPANY AND IS REGISTERED AT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES , KOLKATA. DIRECTORS OF AMBICA COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED ARE MOH MAD PYARE, SUDIP KUMAR SHAW, AMBICA COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED'S CORPORATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS (CIN) U51109WB2009PTC132781 AND ITS REGISTRATION NUMBER IS 132781. ITS EMAIL ADDRESS IS RUNGTARAMGARH@GMAIL.CO M AND ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS IS DIAMOND PRESTIGE, ROOM NO.310,41 A, A.J.C., BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA, WB-700017 IN M.R. INFRADEV P. LTD MR. INFRADEV PRIVATE LIMITED IS A PRIVATE INCORPORATE D ON 26TH JUNE, 2009. IT IS CLASSIFIED AS NON-GOVT COMPANY AN D IS REGISTERED AT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KOLKATA. DIRECTORS OF MR. INFRADEV PRIVATE LIMITED ARE ABHIS HEK RUNGTA AND MAYA RUNGTA. MR INFRADEV PVT LIMITEDS CORPORATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS (CIN) U70200WB2009PTC136320 AND ITS REGISTRATION NUMBER IS 136320. ITS EMAIL ADDRESS IS RUNGTARAMGARH@GMAIL.COM AND ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS IS SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 7 DIAMOND PRESTIGE, ROOM NO.310, 41 A, A.J.C., BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA, WB700017 IN M.R. INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. MR. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED IS A PRIVATE INCORP ORATED ON 16TH JULY, 2009. IT IS CLASSIFIED AS NON-GOVT COMPA NY AND IS REGISTERED AT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KOLKATA. DIRECTORS OF MR. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ARE ABHISHEK RUNGTA AND MAYA RUNGTA. MR. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED'S CORPORATE IDENT IFICATION NUMBER IS (DN) U74900WB2009PTC136892 AND ITS REGISTRATION NUMBER IS 136892. ITS EMAIL ADDRESS IS RUNGTARAMGARH@GMAIL.COM AND ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS IS DIAMOND PRESTIGE, ROOM NO.310, 41 A, A.J.C., BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA, WB-700017 IN 7. THE CIT(A) AFTER RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS QU OTED IN HIS ORDER, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISMISSED THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. BEFORE US, LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAIN ED THE SOURCE OF THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM EIGHT COMPANIES. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS A ND FILED COPIES OF THE SAME: I) SHREE BHAGWATI CONCAST PVT LTD. VS ITO (ITA NO.3 3/JP/15 A.Y. 2005-06 ORDER DATED 16.2.2018.(JAIPUR TRIBUNAL) II) CIT VS. NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE (P) LTD. (ITA NO.342 OF 2011) ORDER DATED 15.2.2012 (DELHI H.C.) III) CIT VS. NR PORTFOLIO PVT LTD (INCOME TAX APPEA L NO.1019/2011) ORDER DATED 22.11.2013 (DELHI H.C.) IV) RAJMANDIR ESTATE PVT LTD. VS PR. CIT (G.A.HNO.5 09 OF 2016 WITH ITAT NO.113 OF 2016) ORDER DATED 13.5.2016 (CAL H.C.). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED LOAN FROM EIGHT COMPANIES AGGREGATING TO RS.14,61,50,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE LOAN TRANSACTION FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: I) CONFIRMATION OF LOAN. II) COPY OF PAN CARD OF LOAN CREDITORS. III) AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF LOAN CREDITORS. IV) BANK STATEMENT OF THE LOAN CREDITORS FROM WHERE THE LOAN WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ACCEPTED THE ABOVE LOAN AND ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.14,61,50,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT OUT OF EIGHT COMPANIES, ADDRESS OF FOUR COMPANIES ARE SAME. HE A LSO OBSERVED THAT THE INCOMES DECLARED BY EIGHT COMPANIES WERE MEAGRE. THE DIRECT OR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WHO WAS ALSO A DIRECTOR IN A NUMBER OF COMPANIES FR OM WHOM LOAN WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THOUGH ONCE APPEARED BEFORE HIM I N PURSUANCE TO SUMMON ISSUED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT AND HIS STATEME NT WAS ALSO PARTIALLY RECORDED BUT DID NOT APPEAR LATER ON BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR COMPLETING THE RECORDING OF STATEMENT. IN ONE OF THE LENDING COMPANY, NAMELY, A MBICA COMMERCIAL PVT LTD., SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 8 FROM WHOM LOAN OF RS.10,00,000/- WAS ACCEPTED BY TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY, SHRI MOHD. PYARE AND SHRI SUDIP K SHAW WERE THE DIRECTOR S. THESE TWO PERSONS ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANIES BELONGING TO THE ASSESSE E GROUP COMPANIES. THESE TWO PERSONS ALSO NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFF ICER, WARD 2(1), RANCHI. 12. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT MADE BY ALL THE EIGHT COMPANIES WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS NO N-GENUINE AND HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN MONEY WAS ROUTED THROUGH CIRCUIT OUS ROUTES THROUGH DIFFERENT COMPANIES AS UNDER: 1. NAGINA EXPORTS & FINVEST PVT LTD,. : RS. 4,8 3,00,000 2. TOLASARIYA VINIYOG PVT LTD. : RS. 4,36,00,00 0 3. LUPIN COMMODEAL PVT LTD. : RS. 4,14,00,000 4. JIT FINANCE LTD., : RS. 1,00,00,000 5. MOHANKA EXPORTS PVT LTD. : RS. 12,00,000 6. AMBIKA COMMERCE PVT LTD. : RS. 10,00,000 7. M.R.INFRADEV PVTD. : RS. 3,50,000 8. M.R.INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. : RS. 3,00, 000 TOTAL : RS.14,61,50,000 13. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED T HAT ALL THE EIGHT COMPANIES FROM WHOM LOAN IN QUESTION WAS TAKEN BELONGED TO TH E SAME GROUP TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BELONGED TO. IN OTHER WORDS, THE L OANS IN QUESTION WERE TAKEN FROM GROUP COMPANIES AND NOT FROM ANY OUTSIDER. AS THE COMPANIES BELONGED TO THE SAME GROUP, IT WAS NORMAL THAT THE FOUR OF THE COMP ANIES HAD THE SAME ADDRESS. SO, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD HAVE BEEN DRAWN FROM THE ABOVE FACT. 15. IN RESPECT OF MOHD. PYARE AND SRI SUDIP K SHAW, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THEY WERE EMPLOYEE OF THE GROUP COMPANIES. THEY WERE NOT THE PROMOTER DIRECTORS BUT WERE APPOINTED AS DIRECTORS FOR THE SAKE OF DAY TO DAY A DMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE. SIMPLY BECAUSE A DIRECTOR IS NOT A PROMOTER DIRECTOR, IT C ANNOT BE BRANDED AS A DUMMY DIRECTOR. 16. SIMPLY BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF LOAN ADVANCED BY E ACH OF THE EIGHT COMPANIES WAS MORE THAN THE INCOME OF THE RELEVANT YEAR, IT C ANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE LOANS WERE NOT GENUINE. BECAUSE THE LOAN CAN BE ADVANCED OUT OF REFUND RECEIVED OF THE LOAN ADVANCED IN EARLIER YEARS OR BY DISPOSAL OF OT HER INVESTMENTS ACQUIRED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS OR EVEN FROM BORROWINGS MADE. 17. REGARDING THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THE EACH OF THE 8 COMPANIES IN QUESTION ADVANCED LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT WAS EXPLA INED AS UNDER: NAME AMOUNT SOURCE AMBICA COMMERCE PVT LTD. 10,00,000.00 LOAN JEET FINANCE PVT LTD. 1,00,00,000.00 REFUND OF LOAN M/S. INFRADEV PVT LTD. 3,50,000.00 LOAN M.R. INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. 3,10,000.00 LOAN MOHANKA EXPORTS PVT LTD. 12,10,000.00 LOAN LUPIN COMMDEAN PVT LTD 4,14,00,000.00 REFUND OF LO AN/LOAN TAKEN NAGINA EXPORTS & FINVEST PVT LTD. 4,83,00,000.00 RE FUND OF LOAN/LOAN TAKEN/SALE OF SHARES TOLASARIYA VINIYOG PVT LTD. 4,36,00,000.00 REFUND O F LOAN/LOAN TAKEN 18. WE FIND THAT NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RE CORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN MONEY WAS BROUGHT IN AS IN THE FORM OF LOAN BY CIRCUITOUS METHOD. THE ABOVE LOAN IS IN THE REALM OF SUSPICION OR SURMISES AND N OT THAT BY ANY MATERIAL. SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 9 19. ON APPRECIATION OF THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE AVAILABLE, WE FIND THAT THE IDENTITY OF EIGHT LOAN CREDITORS WHO ARE GROUP COMPANIES ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS STANDS EXPLAINED FROM THE CONFIRMATION ACCOUNT OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE CREDITORS AND THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE CREDITOR COMPANIES. THUS , PRIMA FACIE , THE ONUS WHICH WAS ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY STANDS DISCHARGED. 20. THEREAFTER, THE REVENUE COULD NOT BRING ANY MAT ERIAL APART FROM SUSPICION OR SURMISES TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN MONEY WAS PLOUGHED BACK VIDE THE LOAN IN QUESTION. 21. FURTHER, IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE CONFIRMATION O F LOAN ACCOUNT OF EIGHT COMPANIES UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD P AID INTEREST ON LOAN IN QUESTION TO ALL THE EIGHT LOAN CREDITORS. THE SAID PAYMENT O F INTEREST WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS GENUINE AND NO DISALLOWANCE OU T OF THE SAME WAS MADE. 22. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSTRAINED TO HOLD THAT T HE ADDITION OF RS.14,61,50,000/- IN QUESTION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.14,61,50,000/- AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED CIT-DR AT THIS STAGE REFERRED TO THE ALLEGE D INTRODUCTION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY WAY OF SHARE CAPITAL / PREMIU M AND UNSECURED LOANS HE TOOK US TO PAGES 15 TO 28 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. HE ALSO REFERRED TO HONBLE APEX COURTS RECENT DECISION IN PCIT CENTRAL-1 VS. NRA IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD. SLP NO.29855 OF 2018. 3. WE DO NOT FIND FORCE IN EITHER OF THESE ARGUMENT S. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT HONBLE APEX COURTS DECISION AND OTHER JUDICIAL PR ECEDENTS (SUPRA) HEREIN ABOVE DO NOT INVOLVE AN INSTANCE OF GROUP ENTITY TU RNING OUT TO BE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. THE SAME IS DISTINGUISHED THEREFORE CO MING TO OTHER ARGUMENTS, WE FIND THAT THIS ASSESSEE HAS SATISFIED ALL THE TH REE PARAMETERS NAMELY IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE G ROUP ENTITIES QUA BOTH SHARE CAPITAL / PREMIUM AS WELL AS UNSECURED LOANS IN QUESTION. WE REITERATE THAT LEARNED CO-ORDINATE BENCH (SUPRA) HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED AT LEAST FOUR ENTITIES M/S TOLASARIYA VINIYOG PVT. LTD., M/S MOHA NKA EXPORTS PVT. LTD, M/S NAGINA EXPORT & FINVEST PVT. LTD., & M/S LUPIN COMM EDEAL PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT SAME AS GENUINE PARTIES. 4. LEARNED CIT-DR TOOK US TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER S DETAILED DISCUSSION IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2017 ( PAGE-2 ONWARDS ) INTER ALIA SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 10 INDICATING THAT ALTHOUGH THIS TAXPAYER HAD CLAIMED THE FOREGOING FOUR INVESTOR(S) AS GROUP ENTITIES, IT COULD NOT SATISF ACTORILY DISCHARGE ITS ONUS OF PROVING GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS THEREOF. M ORE PARTICULARLY SINCE THE SAID ENTITIES HAD BEEN HAVING MEAGRE SOURCES OF BUS INESS INCOME IN THE CORRESPONDING TIME SPAN. AND THAT THE ASSESSEES FO UR SO-CALLED GROUP INVESTORS; ALTHOUGH SENT THEIR REPLIES IN RESPECT T O SEC. 133(6) PROCESS BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY DURING SCRUTINY, CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR BEOFRE HIM. COUPLED WITH THIS, M/S RAUNAK ISPAT ENTERPRISES PVT . LTD. WAS ALSO FOUND SUBJECTED TO SIMILAR SEC 68 ADDITION OF RS.492,888, 019/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WHEREAS WE ARE DEALING WITH ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED ASSESSEES PLEA THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT LEADS TO DOUBLE ASSESSMENT OF THE VERY SUM I N ITS HANDS. HE THEREFORE CONSIDERED FINANCIALS OF ALL THESE ENTITIES TO OBSE RVE THAT THE SAID ALLEGED MEAGRE SUMS NOWHERE JUSTIFIED THEIR RESPECTIVE INVE STMENTS IN ASSESSEES SHARE CAPITAL / PREMIUM. HE ALSO TOOK NOTE OF THE D UBIOUS MECHANISM EMPLOYED BY ALL THESE GROUP COMPANIES TO INTRODUCE UNACCOUNTED MONEY(IES) IN THE GARB OF SHARE CAPITAL. IN HIS OPINION, THE M ERE FACT OF THE INVESTOR ENTITIES TURNING OUT TO BE GROUP CONCERNS WOULD NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE OVERWHELMING DOUBTFUL FINANCIALS, THEIR COMMON DIRE CTOR SHRI ALOK RUNGTAS DEPOSITION(S) DURING SURVEY AND THEREAFTER FAILING TO THROW LIGHT ON VARIOUS CLINCHING ASPECTS INCLUDING THE CORRESPONDING BOARD S RESOLUTIONS, THREE OF THE SAID ENTITIES HAVING COMMON EMAIL IDS & ADDRESSES IN KOLKATA, THE LOCAL OFFICE ATTENDANTS STATEMENT UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THEI R BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND THE ALLEGED FIVE FOLDED MONEY TRIAL WHEREIN THE ASSESSE E WAS SOUGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED AS THE ALTERNATE BENEFICIARY ( PAGES 15-24 IN ASSESSMENT ORDER ), NON-APPEARANCE OF TWO COMMON DIRECTOR(S) S/SH MOHAM MAD PYARE AND SUDIP KUMAR SHAW (SUPRA) WERE FOUND TO BE KEY REASO NS FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. BOTH THESE PERSONS WERE FOUND TO BE DIRECTOR(S) IN MANY SUCH ENTITIES ON MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS DINS . THEY WERE HELD AS MERE DUMMY DIRECTORS SINCE BASED IN JHARKHAND. ALL THIS FORMED SUFFICIENT REASONING FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADD THE IMPU GNED SHARE CAPITAL OF SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 11 RS.23,33,31,810/- AS BOGUS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AS UPHELD IN THE CIT(A)S LOWER APPELLATE DISCUSSION. 5. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL PLEADINGS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED SHARE CAPITAL / PREM IUM ADDITIONS. CASE RECORDS COMPRISING OF VARIOUS DETAILED PAPER BOOKS STAND PERUSED. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE IMPUG NED SHARE CAPITAL / SHARE PREMIUM TO HAVE COME FROM GROUP ENTITIES. WE MAKE I T CLEAR THAT THIS CLINCHING GROUP ENTITIES RELATION HAS GONE UNREBUTTED FROM THE DEPARTMENT SIDE. HON GUJARAT HIGH COURTS DECISION TAX APPEAL NO. 1180 OF 2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VS. GYSCOAL ALLOYS LTD . (SUPRA) (UPHOLDS TRIBUNAL SIMILAR CONCLUSION IN CASE OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE CAPITAL / PREMIUM COMING FROM GROUP ENTITIES IN DCIT VS. GYSCOAL ALLO YS LTD. ITA NO. 102/AHD/2014 DATED 06.04.2018) AS FOLLOWS:- THE ISSUE PERTAINS TO THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSES SEE-COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED A SUM OF R S. 9.99 CRORES [ROUNDED OFF] IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE AID OF SECTION 6 8 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 ['THE ACT' FOR SHORT]. CIT[A] DELETED SUCH ADDITION PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED THE SOURCE, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTORS. IN FURTHER DETAI LED' CONSIDERATION, THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE VIEW OF CIT[A], MAKING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 'I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9,99,99,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM FROM M/S. GENERAL CAPITAL AND HOL DING CO. PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD DURING THE YEAR. THE AO HELD THAT TH E CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TION WERE NOT PROVED BY THE APPELLANT AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE AD DITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT FOR THE ABOVE AMOUNT. THE APP ELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THREE INGREDIENTS SUCH AS, CREDI T WORTHINESS, GENUINENESS AND THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT HAVE BEEN PROVED AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MA DE BY THE AO. CITAXAP/L180/20 18 ORDER DURING THE COURSE OF APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE ALSO OBTAI NED FROM AO AND THE SAME HAVE ALSO BEEN EXAMINED BY ME TO ASCER TAIN THE FACTS CORRECTLY. THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY M/S. GENERAL CAPITAL HAS BEEN DULY CON FINNED THE FACT OF MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE APPELLATE COMPANY. THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH BAN KING CHANNEL. THE SAME ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF THAT COMPANY. THE EXTRACTS OF THE BANK STATEMENT WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE ME DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS BEFORE THE AO CLEARLY SHOW THAT THERE ARE NO CASH DEPOSITS AS MEN TIONED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT THE CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED AND SUBSEQUENTLY CHEQUES WERE ISSUED IS FACTUALLY SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 12 INCORRECT. THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY ALSO ATTENDE D BEFORE AO AND CONFIRMED THE FACT. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT BOTH THE COMPANIES, THAT IS THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS WELL AS THE SHARE APPLICANT AR E MANAGED BY THE SAME GROUP OF PERSONS. HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT HAS CONSISTENTLY H ELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT PROOF IN RESPECT OF T HE SHARE APPLICATION, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. IF THE AO HAS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANT F URTHER INVESTIGATION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT, BU T NOT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. .' CITAXAP/L180/2018 ORDER IT CAN THUS BE SEEN THAT TH E ENTIRE ISSUE IS BASED ON APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. CIT[A] AND THE TRIBUNAL CONCURRENTLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD DISCHARGES ITS BASIC ONUS. THE INVESTORS HAVE CONFIRMED THE TRANSA CTIONS. SUCH TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNEL. THE D IRECTOR OF THE INVESTING COMPANY HAD ALSO APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND ALSO CON FINNED THE TRANSACTIONS. THE CIT[A] AND THE TRIBUNAL ALSO DID NOT CONFIRM THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILE D TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OR GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS . NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. TAX APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 6. THE REVENUE FURTHER FAILS TO DISPUTE THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCHS DISCUSSION (SUPRA) HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS M ULTI-FOLDED REASONING I.E. MR. ALOK RLENGTAS SURVEY AND POST SURVEYS STATEME NT, DUMMY DIRECTORS S/SH MUHAMMAD PYAR AND SUDIP SHAW, SUSPICIOUS FINANCIAL STATEMENT (SUPRA) TO HOLD THAT THESE GROUP ENTITIES ARE VERY MUCH GENUIN E AND CREDITWORTHY INVESTORS. AND ALSO THAT THE CIT(A)S HAS RELIED UP ON HIS ORDER IN SAID EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH ALREADY STANDS REVERSED. WE A LSO NOTE THAT THE FACTUAL POSITION IS NO DIFFERENT IN CASE OF THE REMAINING T WO INVESTORS PARTIES NAMELY M/S RAUNAK ISPAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. AND M/S EXCL USIVE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., (SUPRA) AS WELL WHEREIN THE LEARNED LOWER AUT HORITIES ADOPTED THE VERY REASONING TO DECLINE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WITHOUT DRAWING ANY DISTINCTION ON FACTS OR LAW. WE INTER ALIA TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AL L THESE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT CASE RECORDS; INCLU DING THE LATTER TWO ENTITIES REGULAR ASSESSMENTS ALONGWITH THEIR AUDIT REPORTS B ANK STATEMENTS, RETURNS & SOURCE OF SOURCE AND SEC. 143(3) ASSESSMENT, TO HOL D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROVING IDENTIT Y, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF ITS SHARE INVESTORS PARTIES. SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 13 7. WE NOW COME TO THE LATTER LIMB OF UNSECURED LOAN ADDITION ISSUE OF RS.436,85,914/- TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND RESTRICTED TO RS.93,36,031/- ONLY IN THE CIT(A)S DISCUSSION AS UNDER:- 9. THE 3 RD ISSUE RAISED BY THE AR RELATING TO GROUND NOS. 2 & 6 WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF RS.4,36,85,914/- BEING THE UNSECURE D LOAN AND INTEREST ADDED U/S 68. THIS ISSUE WAS BRIEFLY ARGUED IN 3 PARTS BY THE AR AS MENTIONED IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE POINTS RAISED WERE:- COMPANIES TO WHOM INTEREST WAS PAID FOR THE OPENING BALANCE OF LOAN AMOUNT AND NO FRESH LOAN WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. COMPANIES TO WHICH THE INTEREST WAS PAID AGAINST PA RT LOAN AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. COMPANY NAMELY M/S BHUTORIA ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. W HICH HAD A OPENING DEBIT BALANCE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 9.1 IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING THE ABOVE ADDITION HAD MADE A SIMILAR FINDING IN ALL CA SES STATING THAT THE GENUINENESS, CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE IDENTITY COULD NOT BE PROV ED AND AS SUCH, THE ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOAN AMOUNT AND THE INTEREST PAID IS BEIN G MADE U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. 9.1.1 THE AR OF THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH THE LEDGER S OF EACH COMPANY HAS FILED A CHART OF THE ABOVE ADDITION WHICH IS REPRODUCED HER EIN BELOW: SL.NO. NAME PRINCIPAL AMOUNT RECEIVED INTEREST PAID (INCLUDING TDS) TOTAL 1. M/S NAINA EXPORT & FINVEST PVT. LTD. 18,00,000 33,70,969/- 51,70,969/- 2 M/S TOLASARIYA VINIYOG PVT. LTD. 15,00,000 33,79,782 48,79,782/- 3 M/S LUPINI COMMODEAL PVT LTD. 10,00,000 22,69,395 32,69,395/- 4 M/S MOHANKA EXPORT PVT. LTD., --- 98,540 98,540/- 5 M/S BHUTORIA ELECTRICALS PVT., LTD. 1,90,94,150 (1,71,79,150 WAS THE OPENING BALANCE IN DEBIT SIDE I.E. ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS TO RECEIVE THE SAME IN BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, HOWEVER RECEIVED 1,90,94,150 ) 8,728 1,91,02,878/- 6 M/S ESCORTS TRADLINK PVT. LTD. 10,50,000 18,227 10,68,227/- 7 M/S JIT FINANCE PVT. LTD., ---- 12,11,551 12, 11,551/- 8 M/S EXCLUSIVE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED RS.9,98,00,000/- OUT OF WHICH 15,00,370/- (BALANCE AMOUNT I.E. AMOUNT RECEIVED LESS SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 14 SHARES ALLOTTED FOR RS.9,82,99,630/- ( ADDITION MADE ABOVE ) AMOUNT CONVERTED INTO SHARE CAPITAL) 9 M/S RAUNAK ISPAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED RS.13,32,00,000/- OUT OF WHICH SHARES ALLOTTED FOR4 RS.13,31,99,600/- (ADDITION MADE ABOVE) 400/- (BALANCE AMOUNT I.E. AMOUNT RECEIVED LESS AMOUNT CONVERTED INTO SHARE CAPITAL) 10 M/S R M IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD., ---- 45,81,148 45,81,148/- 11 M/S R M CONSCAST PVT. LTD., 5,43,706 5,17,862 10,61,568/- 12 M/S SIDHI VINAYAK LOH YDYOG PVT. LTD. ---- 5,94,827 5,94,827/- 13 ALOKE STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ----- 11,46,259 11,46,259/- 2,49,87,856 1,38,17,506 4,36,89,914/- 9.2 CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORWARD BY THE A R, THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ADJUDICATED AS UNDER:- 9.2.1 WITH RESPECT TO M/S NAGINA EXPORT & FINVEST P VT. LTD., M/S TOLASARIYA VINIYOG PVT. LTD. M/S LUPIN COMMODEAAL PVT. LTD AND M/S RM CONCAST PVT. LTD., IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT + THE INTEREST AMOUNT WHEREIN THE INTEREST PAID IS MORE THAN THE P RINCIPAL RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. A TABLE SHOWING THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THE AMOUNT OF PRINCIPAL WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY ONLY ON 31/03/2015, BEING THE LAS T DATE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. FURTHER INTEREST WAS ALSO PAID ON THE AMOUNT OF OPE NING BALANCE WHICH WAS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE AR ALSO ARGUED THAT FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, NO SUCH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE PRINCIPAL AMOUN T RECEIVED DIN THE COURSE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT U/S 147/143(3). MOREOVER, NO ADDITION FOR THE INTEREST AMOUNT PAID CAN BE MADE U/S 68 AND THAT NE VER IN PAST HAS THE INTEREST PAYMENT BEEN DISALLOWED. NAME PRINCIPAL AMOUNT RECEIVED INTEREST PAID (INCLUDING TDS) ADDITION AMOUNT M/S NAGINA EXPORT & FINVEST PVT LTD. 18,00,000 33,70,969/- 51,70,969/- M/S TOLASARIYA VINIYOG PVT. LTD. 15,00,000 33,79,782 48,79,782/- M/S LUPIN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD. 5,43,706 5,17,862 10,61,568/- TOTAL 48,43,706/- 95,38,008/- 1,43,81,714/- 9..2.2. THE LEDGER FOR THE SAME IS SCANNED AND PRIN TED BELOW:- MAA CHHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD . AT-HEHAT, P.O . BARKAKANA, DIST. RAMGARH NAGINA EXPORT & FINEVEST PVT. LTD . LEDGER ACCOUNT DIAMOND PRESTIGE, ROOM NO. 310 41A, AJC BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA 1-APR-20 14 TO 31-JAN-2019 DATE PARTICULARS VCH TYPE VCH NO. DEBIT CREDIT SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 15 1-4-2014 DR. OPENING BALANCE 4,51,93,886.7 24-03-2015 CR. S.B.I.C.C. RANCHI- 10687248050 CH.NO.591694 USED FOR RTGS PAYMENT 1311 27,58,065.00 25-3-2015 DR. S.B.I.C.C. RANCHI- 10687248050 BEING RTGS REVERSED DATED 24.03.15 CR. SBI C.C. RANCHI-10687248050 CH.NO.591705 USED FOR RTGS CR. SHARE APPLICATION A/C BEING A PPLICATION RECEIVED FOR 85271 EQUITY SHARES OF RS 100/- EACH ON THE PREMIUM OF RS 430/- PER SHARES AS PER SHARE APPLICATION DATED 25.03.15 RECEIPT PAYMENT ACCEPTE D 1065 1319 1370 27,58,055.00 4,51,93,66330.00 27,58,065.00 31-3-2015 CR. TDS (PAYABLE) BEING TDS DEDCTED ON INTEREST ON LOAN @ 10% JOURNAL 3,07,253.00 DR INTEREST ON U/LOAN BEING INTEREST PROVIDED @ 9% P.A FOR 275 DAYS AS PER VOUCHER JOURNAL 30,64,517.00 DR. S.BI C.C RANCHI-106872480050 BEING AMOUNT RECEIIPT THROUGH RGS- HDFCR52015033161500506 RECEIPT 1109 15,00,000.00 CR. CLOSING BALANCE 4,83,84,349.00 15,00,222.70 4,98,84,571.70 1-8-2015 DR. OPENING BALANCE 4,98,84,571.70 4,98,84,571.70 MAA CHHINN AMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD . AT-H EHAT, P.O. BARKAKANA, DIST. RAMGARH LUPIN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD . LEDGER ACCOUNT DIAMOND PRESTIGE, ROOM NO. 310 41A, AJC BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA 1-APR-2014 TO 31-JAN-2019 DATE PARTICULARS VCH TYPE VCH NO. DEBIT CREDIT 1-4-2014 DR. OPENING BALANCE 3,04,25,310.20 24-03-2015 CR. S.B.I.C.C. RANCHI- 10687248050 CH.NO.591692 USED FOR RTGS PAYMENT 1309 18,56,777.00 25-3-2015 CR. SHARE APPLICATION A/C BEING APPLICATION RECEIVED FOR 57406 EQUITY SHARES OF RS 100/- EACH ON THE PREMIUM OF RS 430/- PER SHARES AS PER SHARE APPLICATION DATED 25.03.15 JOURNAL 1370 3,04,25,180.00 31-3-2015 CR. TDS (PAYABLE) BEING TDS DEDCTED ON INTEREST ON LOAN @ 10% 2,06,309.00 DR INTEREST ON U/LOAN BEING INTEREST PROVIDED @ 9% P.A UPTO 31.212.2014 JOURNAL 20,63,086.00 DR. S.BI C.C RANCHI-10687248050 BEING AMOUNT RECEIIPT THROUGH RGS- HDFCR52015033161497324 RECEIPT 1107 10,00,000.00 CR. CLOSING BALANCE 3,24,88,266.00 10,00,130.20 3,34,88,396.20 3,34,88,396.20 3,34,88,396.20 1-3-2016 DR. OPENING BALANCE 9.2.3 THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE ORAL AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE AR HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 16 CASE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND FOR A.Y 2 2013-14 INCLUDING THE ORDER OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED. CIT(A) AND ALSO IN VIEW OF MY FINDINGS IN PARA 8.2 ABOVE, I HEREBY CONFIRM THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT TOTALING TO RS.48,43,706/- U/S 68 IN THE NAME OF AB OVE MENTIONED COMPANIES. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION U/S 68 WITH RESPECT TO INTERES T, I FIND LOT OF FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE AR AS MENTIONED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS A LONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE OPENING BALANCE OF T HE LOAN AMOUNTS AS REFLECTED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT STANDS ACCEPTED AND NO ADDITION FOR THE SAME WAS MADE IN THE PAST AS PER RECORD AND ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMITTED BY THE AR. AS SUCH, NO ADDITION FOR THE INTEREST PAID AGAINST THE SAME CAN BE MADE. ON PERUSAL OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDERS, IT HAS BEEN ASCERTAINED THAT THE AO HAS NEVER EVER EXAMINED AND GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNTS RECE IVED IN THE EARLIER YEARS WHICH IS PART OF OPENING BALANCE HAVE NOT BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFI CATION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT BORROWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RESPECTIVE PRINCIPAL AMOUNTS WERE DULY UTILIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. MOREOVER, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, DISALLO WANCE OF INTEREST CANNOT BE MADE U/S 68 AND THE RELEVANT SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR DIS ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS SECTION 36(1)(III). THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO ASCER TAIN AND TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE BU SINESS EITHER AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT TH ERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PERTAINING TO THE OPENING BALANCE. HOWEVER, AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A S WELL AS THE DECISION AS PER THIS APPELLATE ORDER WITH RESPECT TO THE PRINCIPAL AMOUN T RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR WHICH IS ADDED U/S 68 WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AS PER THIS O RDER, INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) IS NOT ALLOWABLE ON THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT. THE AR REITERATE D THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED ONLY ON 31/03/2015 AND THEREFORE THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DISALLOW THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST U/S.36(1)(III). THE REMAININ G ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IS HEREBY DELETED . 9.3 FOR M/S MOHANKA EXPORT PVT. LTD, M/.S JIT FINANCE P VT. LTD., M/S RM IRON & STEEL PVT LTD., M/S SIDHI VINAYAK LOH UDYOG PVT. LT D., AND M/S ALOK STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT LTD., IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE INTEREST AMOUNT AND NO PRINCIPAL AM OUNT WAS R4ECEIVED DURING THE YEAR AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO ADDITION OF PRINCIP 0AL AMOUNT. THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE AR IS TABULATED BELOW:- NAME PRINCIPAL AMOUNT RECEIVED INTEREST PAID (INCLUDING TDS) ADDITION AMOUNT M/S MOHANKA EXPORT ---- 98,540 98,540/- M/S JIT FINANCE PVT LTD. ----- 12,11,551 12,11, 551/- M/S R./M IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD. ----- 45,81,148 45,81,148/- M/S SIDHI VINAYAK LOH UDYOG PVT. LTD. ------ 5,94,827 5,94,827/- ALOKE STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ----- 11,46,259 11,46 ,259/- TOTAL ---- 76,32,325/- 76,32,325/- 9.3.1 THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE ORAL AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION U/ S 68 WITH RESPECT TO INTEREST, I FIND LOT OF FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE AR AS MENT IONED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD. ON PERUS AL OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDERS, IT HAS BEEN ASCERTAINED THAT THE AO HAS NEV ER EVER EXAMINED AND GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) AND/OR 147 HAVE NOT BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 17 MOREOVER, THERE WAS NO ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR EARLIER YEARS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUN T BORROWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RESPECTIVE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT WAS DULY UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. MOREOVER, AS PER THE PROVISION S OF THE ACT, ADDITION OF INTEREST CANNOT BE MADE U/S. 68 AND THE RELEVANT SPECIFIC PR OVISIONS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS SECTION 36(1)(III). FURTHER, THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO ASCERTAIN AND TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT BEING THE OP ENING BALANCE HAVE NOT BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE BUSINESS EITHER AS PR THE ASSESSME NT ORDER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE EARLIER YEARS. MOREOVER, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNTS BORROWED IN TH E EARLIER YEARS WERE DULY UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. IN VI EW OF THESE FACTS, IT IS HELD THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DISALLOWAN CE OF INTEREST PERTAINING TO THE OPENING BALANCE ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NO FINDING THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNTS WERE NOT UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS EITHER AS PER PRESENT ASSESSMENT ORDER OR AS PER EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDERS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF INTEREST AMOUNT MADE U/S 68 FOR ABOVE MENTIONED COMPANIES IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE A ND HENCE THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS HEREBY DELETED . 9.4 FOR M/S BHUTORIA ELECTRICALS PVT LTD. THE ASSES SING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,91,02,878/-. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF TH E ABOVE, RS.1,71,79,150/- WAS THE OPENING DEBIT BALANCE I.E. THE APPELLANT WAS TO REC EIVE THE SAME FROM M/S BHUTORIA ELECTRICAL PVT LTD., AS SUCH, THE AR ARGUED THAT NO ADDITION OF THIS AMOUNT CAN BE MADE U/S 68 IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AS THE SA ME WAS RECEIVABLE AS ON 01/04/2014. THE AR SUPPORTED HIS CONTENTION WITH TH E COPY OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND BALANCE SHEET AS N 31/03/2014 WHEREIN IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.1,71,79,150/- IS ALSO APPEARING IN THE AUDITED B ALANCE SHEET IN THE ASSET SIDE UNDER TRADE RECEIVABLES. FURTHER, THE AR ALSO FURNI SHED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THIS COMPANY, ON PERUSAL OF WHICH, IT IS ASCERTAINED THA T THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.1,71,79,150/- WAS RECEIVED OUT OF THE OPENING BA LANCE AS ON 01/04/2014 AND THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON VARIOUS DATES TILL 20/12/2014. THE LEDGER FOR THE SAME IS SCANNED AND PRINTED BELOW:- MAA CHHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD . AT-H EHAT, P.O. BARKAKANA, DIST. RAMGARH BHUT ORIA ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD . LEDGER ACCOUNT DI AMOND PRESTIGE, ROOM NO. 310 41A, AJC BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA 1-APR-2014 TO 31-JAN-2019 DATE PARTICULARS VCH TYPE VCH NO. DEBIT CREDIT 1-4-2014 CR. OPENING BALANCE 1,71,79,150 20-5-2014 DR. S.B.I.C.C.RANCHI- 10687248050 HDFCH RECEIPT 192 10,00,000.00 30-5-2014 DR. S.B.I.C.C. RANCHI- 10687248050 CH. NO. HDFCH RECEIPT 198 8,50,000.00 14-8-2014 DR. S.B.I.C.C. RANCHI- 10687248050 RTGS HDFCR52014081452829690 RECEIPT 465 19,29,150.00 16-8-2014 DR. S.B.I.C.C. RANCHI- 10687248050 RTGS RECIIVED INTO A/C HDFCR5201481652868552 RECEIPT 466 8,00,000.00 4-9-2014 DR S.B.I.C.C. RANCHI-1068724850 BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THROUGH RTGS HDFCR52014090453498439 RECEIPT 504 18,00,000.00 22-10-20104 DR. S.B.I.C.C. RANCHI- SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 18 10687248050 BEING AMOUTN RECEIVED THROUGH RTGS HDFCR52014102255216188 DR. S.B.I.C.C. RANCHI- 10687248050 BEING AMOUTN RECEIVED THROUGH RTGS HDFCR52014102255216477 RECEIPT RECEIPT 597 598 25,00,000.00 35,00,000.00 13-11-2014 DR. S.B.I.C.C. RANCHI- 10687248050 BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED THROUGH RTGS HDFCR520141111355933782 RECEIPT 623 35,00,000.00 20-12-2014 DR. S.B.I.C.C. RANCHI- 10687248050 HDFCR RECEIPT 717 23,00,000.00 16-2-2015 DR. S.B.I.C.C. RANCHI- 106877248050 BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED THROUGH RTGS RECEIPT 900 7,15,000.00 24-3-2015 CR. S.B.I.C.C. RANCHI- 10687248050 CH. NO. 591700 USED FOR RTGS PAYMENT 1312 7,140.00 31-3-2015 CR. TDS ( PAYABLE ) BEING TGDS DEDUCTED ON INTEREST ON LOAN @ 10% DR. INTEREST ON U/LOAN BEING INTEREST PAYABLE @ 9% P.A. FFOR 45 DAYS AS PER VOUCHER. DR. S.B.I.C.C. RANCHI- 10687248050 BEING AMOUTN RECIPT THROUGH RTGS- HDFCR52015033161491081 JOURNAL JOURNAL RECEIPT 869 1108 794.00 7,934.00 12,00,000.00 CARRIED OVER 1,71,87,084.00 1,91,02084.00 CONTINUED 9.4.1 FOR IN VIEW OF THEE ABOVE, AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE PART ADDITION OF RS.1,71,79,150/- . HOWEVER, THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS.19,23,637/- IS CONFIRMED IN LIGHT OF MY FINDINGS ABOVE WITH RESPECT TO SECTI ON 68 AS PER PARA 9.2.3. MOREOVER, THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 FOR INTEREST AMOUNT OF RS. 8,728/- IS DELETED AND IN LIEU OF THAT, AO IS DIRECTED TO DISALLOW THE SAID AMOUNT U/S 36(1)(III) . 9.5. WITH RESPECT TO M/S ESCORT TRADE LINK PVT. LTD, M/S EXCLUSIVE INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD., AND M/S RAUNAK ISPAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD . , IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION FOR THE PRINC IPAL AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER SECTION 68. THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE AR IS TABULATED BELOW:- NAME PRINCIPAL AMOUNT RECEIVED INTEREST PAID (INCLUDING TDS) ADDITION AMOUNT M/S ESCORTS TRADELINK PVT. LTD. 10,50,000 18,227 10 ,68,227/- M/S EXCLUSIVE INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD. TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED RS.9,98,00,000/- OUT OF WHICH SHARES ALLOTTED FOR RS.9,82,99,630/- ( ADDITION MADE ABOVE ) 15,00,370/- (BALANCE AMOUNT I.E. AMOUNT RECEIVED LESS AMOUNT CONVERTED INTO SHARE CAPITAL) M/S RAUNAKISPAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED RS.13,32,00,000/- OUT OF WHICH SHARES ALLOTTED FOR RS.13,31,99,600/- 400/- (BALANCE AMOUNT I.E. AMOUNT RECEIVED LESS AMOUNT CONVERTED INTO SHARE CAPITAL) SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 19 ( ADDITION MADE ABOVE ) 9.5.1 AS PER PARA 9.2.3 I HAVE ALREADY CONFIRMED TH E ADDITION OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT U/S 68 AND AS PER PARA 9.2.3, I HAVE ALREADY DIRECTED T HE AO TO DISALLOW THE INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III). THE TRANSACTIONS STATED HEREIN ARE ALSO SIMILAR TO THOSE MENTIONED THEREIN. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT IS HEREBY CONFIRMED U/S 68 AND DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS ALSO CONFIRMED U/S. 36(1)((III) . LEARNED CIT-DRS CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER S DETAILED REASONING HAS DULY PROVED THAT ALL THE UNSECURED LOAN ENTITIES AR E MERE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDERS ONLY. WE FIND IN THIS BACKDROP THAT SO FAR AS THE CONFIRMED ADDITION OF RS.93,36,031/- AS UNSECURED LOAN(S) IS CONCERNED, THESE ARE TOTAL SEVEN GROUP ENTITIES ONLY I.E. M/S EXCLUSIVE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD, M/S TOLASARIYA VINIYOG PVT LTD, M/S NAGINA EXPORT & FIN VEST PVT.LTD., M/S LUPIN COMMODCAL PVT LTD., M/S R.M. CONCAST PVT. LTD., M/S BHUTORIA ELECTRICAL PVT. LTD., AND M/S ESCORTS TRADELINK PVT. LTD.; ASSESSED TO TAX U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. THESE LOANS HAVE BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN BOOKS FOLLOWED BY INTEREST PAYMENTS AFTER TDS DEDUCTION AS WELL. LEARNED CIT-D R FAILS TO REBUT THAT THESE COMPANIES HAVE BEEN HAVING REGULAR BUSINESS T RANSACTIONS WITH ASSESSEE IN EARLIER AND LATTER ASSESSMENT YEARS WHE REIN THE UNSECURED LOANS ALSO STAND REPAID. LEARNED CO-ORDINATE BENCHS ORDE R HAS ALREADY DELETED IDENTICAL ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2013-14 (S UPRA) INVOLVING ALMOST ALL OF THESE ENTITIES ONLY THEREBY TREATING THEM AS GENUIN E PARTIES. THERE IS HARDLY DISTINCTION ON FACTS IN CASE OF THE REMAINING ENTIT IES AS WELL. 8. WE SEE NO MERIT IT IN THE REVENUES GRIEVANCE T HAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE AFFIRMED THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.4,36,85,914 /- INCLUDING INTEREST THAN RESTRICTING IT TO RS.93,36,031/- ONLY SINCE HE HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT NEITHER THE CORRESPONDING PRINCIPAL SUM HAD BEEN CREDITED OR RE CEIVED IN RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR OR THE INTEREST PAYMENT QUA THE SAME STOOD REJECTED IN REGULAR ASSESSMENTS OF EARLIER AND LATTER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THESE CLINCHING ASPECT HAS NOWHERE BEEN CONTROVERTED FROM THE DEPARTMENT S IDE BEFORE US. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS BASED ON HIS EARL IER ORDER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14; WHILST CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION, S TAND REVERSED IN LEARNED SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 20 CO-ORDINATE BENCHS ORDER. THE SAME IS ADOPTED MUTATIS MUTANDIS HEREIN AS WELL IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINC TION ON FACTS COMING FROM THE REVENUE SIDE. THIS ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOANS AND INTEREST OF RS.436,89,914/- IS DELETED IN ENTIRETY. THE ASSESSE ES FOREGOING 1 ST AND 2 ND SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS ALONGWITH ITS MAIN APPEAL ITA NO.203/RAN/2019 ARE ACCEPTED WHEREAS REVENUES 2 ND AND 3 RD SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN ITA NO.225/RAN/2019 TO THIS EFFECT ARE REJECTED. 9. THIS LEAVES US WITH THE REVENUES FIRST GRIEVAN CE GROUND IN ITS CROSS- APPEAL THAT THE CIT(A)S HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING SEC. 56(2)(VIIB) ADDITION ON VALUATION OF SHARES VIDE FO LLOWING DETAILED DISCUSSION: 7. THE FIRST ISSUE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE GROUND NO S. 5 WHICH RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1,64,66,090/- MADE U/S 56(2)(VIIB) ALLEGING THAT THE SHARES ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT AT A PREMIUM WAS OVERPRICIE. THE RELEVANT PORTION FOR THE SAME HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN PAGE 1-3 IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT SC ANNED ABOVE. 7.1 DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, THE ARE APART FROM FILING THE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION, ARGUED HIS CONTENTION WHICH IS SUMMARIZ ED AS SUNDER:- THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE LD. AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) AS ON 31 /03/2014 BEING RS.500.33/- PER SHARE AGAINST SHARES ALLOTTED ON 28 /03/2015 AT RS.530/- PER SHARE. THE AR ARGUED THAT THE VALUATION SHOULD BE C ONSIDERED AS N THE DATE OF TRANSFER RATHER THAN REFERRING TO THE AUDITED AC COUNTS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE AR FURNISHED THE BOARD RESOLUTION AND AUDITED A CCOUNTS AS ON 26/03/2015 TO EXPLAIN THAT THE VALUATION OF THE UNQ UOTED SHARES COMES TO AROUND RS.529.33/- PER SHARE. THE AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VIIB) AND RULE 11UA, TH E FAIR MARKET VALUE OUGHT TO CALCULATED AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED BY THE AR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF T HE SHARE CAPITAL+ PREMIUM FOR THE COMPANIES TO WHOM SHARES HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE ADDITION. RELYING UPON THE ABOVE, THE AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE UN QUOTED SHARES AS AT 31/03/2014 RATHER SHOULD HAVE ACCEPT THE VALUE AS O N 28/03/2015 BEING THE DATE OF TRANSFER. THE CERTIFIED CALCULATION SHEET A S FURNISHED BY THE AR IS SCANNED AND PRINTED BELOW: DWIVEDI GUPTA & CO. CA SHADRA SADAN METRO CHARTERED ACCOUNTS COMPLEX LANE KUTCHERY ROAD BEHIND O.B.C. RANCHI JHAR KHAND 834001 PH. 93-4859566.0542-2502526 MAA CHHINNMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT LTD HEHAL BARKAKANA RAMGARH SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 21 CALCULATION O F BOOK VALUE PER SHARE TOTAL ASSETS 980,443,256.70 LES: ADVANCE TAX 5,700,000.00 TDS RECEIVABLE 52,554.00 TCS RECEIVABLE 1,436,642.05 A TOTAL LIABIALITIES 973,254,060.65 LESS RESERVE & SURPLUS 239,732,410.53 SHARE CAPITAL 56,327,500.00 PROVISION FOR TAXATION 9,402,856.38 B A-B 298,273,570.86 NO. OF SHARES 563,275.00 BOOK VALUE OR 530/- PER SHARE ALLOTMENT RS.530/- PER SHARE FOR DWIVEDI GUPTA & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS FR.NO.-012584C SD/-D PARTNER) (M.NO. 407188) (SEAL) PL ACE : RAMGARH DATED: 26/03/2015 7.2 FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FURNI SHED BY HIM HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED. I FIND LOT OF FORCE IN THE ARGUMEN T PUT FORWARD BY THE AR STATING THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF U/S 56(2)(VII B) AND RULE 11UA, THE VALUATION OF THE UNQUOTED SHARES OUGHT TO BE CONSID ERED AS ON DATE OF TRANSFER. THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE SECTION WAS ALSO REPRODUCED BY THE AR IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH IS AS UNDER:- [( VIIB ) WHERE A COMPANY, NOT BEING A COMPANY N WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED, RECEIVES, IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, FROM ANY PERSON BEING A RESIDENT, ANY CONSIDERATION FOR ISSU E OF SHARES THAT EXCEEDS THE FACE VALUE OF SUCH SHARES, THE AGGREGAT E CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR SUCH SHARES AS EXCEEDS THE FACE VALUE OF SUCH SHARES, THE AGGREGATE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR SUCH SHARE S AS EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SHARES: PROVIDED THAT THIS CLAUSE SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE THE CONSIDE RATION FOR ISSUE OF SHARES IS RECEIVED- (I) BY A VENTURE CAPITAL UNDERTAKING FROM A VENTURE CAP ITAL COMPANY OR A VENTURE CAPITAL FUND; OR (II) BY A COMPANY FROM A CLASS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS AS MAY BE NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN THIS BEHALF. EXPLANATION.- FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE,- (A) THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SHARES SHALL BE TH E VALUE- (I) AS MAY BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH ME THOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; OR (II) AS MAY BE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE COMPANY TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BASED ON THE VALUE, ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF SHARES, OF ITS ASSETS, INCL UDING INTANGIBLE ASSETS BEING GOODWILL, KNOW-HOW, PATENTS , SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 22 COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS, LICENCES, FRANCHISES OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER; (B) VENTURE CAPITAL COMPANY , VENTURE CAPITAL FUND AND VENTURE CAPITAL UNDERTAKING SHALL HAVE THE MEANINGS RESPECTIVELY ASSIGNED TO THEM IN CLAUSE (A), CLAUSE (B) AND CLAU SE (C) OF [EXPLANATION] TO CLAUSE (23FB) OF SECTION 10;] SUFFICE TO SAY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED THE IMPUGNED SHARE PREMIUM AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AND ALSO INVOKED SEC. 5 6(2)(VIIB) OF THE ACT ON THE OTHER HAND QUA THE VERY SUM(S). IT IS THEREFORE A CLEAR-CUT INSTA NCE OF DOUBLE ADDITION AS PER THIS TRIBUNALS ORDER IN (20 19) 110 TAXMANN.COM 310 (MUM-TRIB) DCIT VS. PALI FABRICS PVT.LTD ., VALUER (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEES REGISTERED VALUER (SUPRA) HAD ALSO ADOPTED BOOK VAL UE OF THE SHARES ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER ONLY AS PER THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISION. WE ACCORDINGLY SEE NO REASON TO ACCEPT THE REVENUES GRIEVANCE. I TS FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND AS WELL AS MAIN APPEAL ITA 225/RAN/2015 FAIL THEREFORE. THE ASSESSEES STAY APPLICATION NO.01/RAN/2020 IS RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS AS WE HAVE DECIDED ITS MAIN APPEAL ITS ELF. 10. THIS ASSESSEES MAIN APPEAL ITA NO.203/RAN/2019 IS ALLOWED AND REVENUES CROSS APPEAL ITA NO. 225/RAN/2019 IS DISMISSED. ASSESSEES SA NO.01/RAN/2020 IS DISMISSED AS RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS. A COPY OF THIS COMMON ORDER BE PLACED IN RESPECTIVE CASE FILES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF HEARI NG ON MONDAY, 2 ND MARCH, 2020 . SD/- SD/- ( ) (' ) (DR. A.L. SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) RANCHI, *DKP SR.P.S (- 02 / 03 /20 20 SA NO.01/R/2020, ITA 203 & 225/R/19 A.Y. 2015-16 M/S MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT P.LTD. VS. ACIT/DCIT-CIR-2, RANCHI PAGE 23 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /ASSESSEE-M/A MAA CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT . LTD., B/H PNB, NH-33 RAMGARH CANT T, RAMGARH-829122 2. /REVENUE-ACIT/DCIT, CIR-2, 1 ST FLOOR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, RANCHI-834001 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT RANCHI 4. 4- / CIT (A) RANCHI 5. 7 3, ' 3, / DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , SR.PS, (ON TOUR), RANCHI
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
Master The Pitch-Deck Game
₹0
1:1 Consultation on FEMA Compliance
₹1
CRM Implementation Plan
₹0
Memorandum Amendment Resolution
₹0
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026