Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 21(1), New Delhi

ITA 2052/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3292 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law; Accommodation entries; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 271(1)(c); 69C; 133(6); 37(1); 13; 147; 131; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI F BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2052/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 RANDEEP INVESTMENT PVT.LTD., C/O-O.P.SAPRA & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES, C-763, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI-110025. PAN-AACCR0988D VS ITO, WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SH. SANDEEP SAPRA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. ROHIT ANAND, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 05.10.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21 .10.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-06 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XXV, NEW D ELHI DATED 30.01.2018. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE PENALTY OF RS.9,24,150/- LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF I.T. ACT IS I LLEGAL ON THE PRELIMINARY GROUND THAT THERE IS COMPLETE NON-APPLI CATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE AO AS PENALTY WAS INITIATED FOR FUR NISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHILE THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LE VIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND UNDER THE LAW IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.9,24,150/- LEVIED BY T HE AO UNDER SECTION 271 (1 )(C) OF I.T. ACT INTER ALIA BECAUSE: ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 2 A) THE APPELLANT HAD NEITHER CONCEALED ANY INCOME N OR HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. B) IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY B OTH UNDER THE SUBSTANTIAL PROVISIONS AND THE EXPLANATION THERETO. AT ANY RATE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE PENALTY AS LEVI ED/CONFIRMED IS VERY EXCESSIVE. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AM END/MODIFY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL PERTAINS TO PENALTY OF RS.9,24,150/- LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147/143(3) OF THE ACT IN ITA NO.4991/DEL/2014 WAS ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE I TS ORDER DATED 06.07.2018 IN WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD BEEN Q UASHED. THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.4853/DEL/2014 ON MERIT W AS ALSO DISMISSED. HE THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE QUANTUM HAS ALREADY BEEN DELETED, PENALTY WOULD NOT SURVIVE. 3. PER CONTRA, LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS RELATED TO LEV Y OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS STATED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 WHEREBY THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED, HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 3 NO.4991/DEL/2014 VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 06.0 7.2018. FURTHER, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN DE LETED, THEREFORE, PENALTY WOULD NOT SURVIVE. THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED TH E FACT THAT THE ADDITION WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF LEVY OF PENALTY HAS BEEN DEL ETED. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE I MPUGNED PENALTY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE A LLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED ON CONCLUSION OF VIRTUAL HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES ON 21 ST OCTOBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- /- (O.P.KANT) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 4 THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS AGAINST THE LEGAL CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE MADE BY WAY O F GROUND NO. 1 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE HAS BEEN THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATIO N WING OF INCOME TAX DEPT. WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THE AO TO INITIATE PROCEED INGS U/S 147/148 OF I.T. ACT AND ALSO RELIED ON THE FINDINGS AS RECORDE D BY THE LD. CIT(A). 9. COPY OF REASONS RECORDED IS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FROM WHICH IT IS EVIDENT THAT REASONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED ON THE B ASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: DATE OF ENTRY IN THE BOOKS FROM TO BANK CHEQUE/RT GS CHEQUE DATE AMOUNT THROUGH 21.02.2005 GIRIASHO CO. P. LTD. RANDEEP INVESTMENT P LTD. OBC 210788 16 FEB,05 5,00,000 DEEPAK JAIN 21.02.2005 GIRIASHO CO. P. LTD. RANDEEP INVESTMENT P LTD. OBC 210789 17 FEB,05 5,50,000 DEEPAK JAIN 22.02.2005 GIRIASHO CO. RANDEEP OBC 210791 19 FEB,05 5,00,000 DEEPAK P. LTD. INVESTMENT P LTD. JAIN 25.02.2005 S.J. SCURITY PVT. LTD. RANDEEP INVESTMENT P LTD. HDFC 271376 23FEB,05 5,00,000 DEEPAK JAIN 12.03.2005 VASHUDEVA FARMS PVT. LTD RANDEEP INVESTMENT P LTD. SIB 766990 10 MAR,05 5,00,000 DEEPAK JAIN 12.03.2005 S.J. SCURITY PVT. LTD. RANDEEP INVESTMENT P LTD. HDFC 271395 10 MAR,05 5,00,000 DEEPAK JAIN 12.03.2005 S.J. SCURITY PVT. LTD. RANDEEP INVESTMENT P LTD. HDFC 271396 14MAR,05 5,00,000 DEEPAK JAIN 14.03.2005 S.J. SCURITY PVT. LTD. RANDEEP INVESTMENT P LTD. HDFC 1667 12 MAR,05 5,00,000 DEEPAK JAIN 16.03.2005 VASHUDEVA FARMS PVT. LTD RANDEEP INVESTMENT P LTD. SIB 766991 14 MAR,05 5,00,000 DEEPAK JAIN 16.03.2005 VASHUDEVA RANDEEP INVESTMENT SIB 766992 23 FEB,05 5,00,000 DEEPAK JAIN ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 5 FARMS PVT. LTD P LTD. 31.03.2005 CHANDERPRA BHU FINVEST P. LTD. RANDEEP INVESTMENT P LTD. SIB 806660 31 MAR,05 8,50,000 DEEPAK JAIN 31.03.2005 VIAGRA TRADING CO. P. LTD. RANDEEP INVESTMENT P LTD. SIB 772507 31 MAR,05 1,50,000 DEEPAK JAIN 31.03.2005 OMNI FARMS P. LTD. RANDEEP INVESTMENT P LTD. SIB 772584 31 MAR,05 6,50,000 DEEPAK JAIN 31.03.2005 VIAGRA TRADING CO. P. LTD. RANDEEP INVESTMENT P LTD. SIB 772506 31 MAR,05 5,00,000 DEEPAK JAIN AS PER THE AO, ASSESSEE RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTR IES AGGREGATING TO RS.72,00,000 FROM 6 PARTIES AS REFER RED ABOVE, THE SUMMARY OF WHICH IS AGAIN GIVEN AS UNDER: NAME AMOUNT (RS.) GIRIASHO 15,50,000 S.J. SEC 20,00,000 VASHUDEVA 15,00,000 CHANDERPRABHU 8,50,000 VIAGRA 6,50,000 OMNI 6,50,000 TOTAL 72,00,000 HOWEVER, AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED 6 PARTIE S AGGREGATING TO RS.73,50,000 AS PER DETAILS BELOW: NAME OF THE CO. AMOUNT (RS.) OMNI FARMS P. LTD. 11,50,000 VASUDEVA FARMS P LTD. 16,50,000 CHANDER PRABHU FINVEST P LTD. 8,50,000 GRIASHO CO. P LTD. 15,50,000 S.J. SECURITY P LTD. 15,00,000 VIAGRA TRADING CO. P LTD. 6,50,000 TOTAL 73,50,000 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT REASONS HAVE BEE N RECORDED BY THE AO SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT MAKING ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES WITH REGARD TO SHARE APPLICAT ION MONEY ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 6 RECEIVED FROM THE ABOVE 6 PARTIES. ON COMPARISON OF THE REASONS RECORDED BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE FOLLOWING DISCREPANCIES ARE APPARENT IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING 3 PARTIES: NAME OF THE CO. AS PER REASONS RECORDED, BOGUS ENTRIES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE (RS.) ACTUAL AMOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED AND ADDITION MADE AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (RS.) DIFFERENCE (RS.) OMNI FARMS P. LTD. 6,50,000 11,50,000 5,00,000 VASUDEVA FARMS P LTD. 15,00,000 16,50,000 1,50,000 S.J. SECURITY P LTD. 20,00,000 15,00,000 (5,00,000) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT AO DID NOT A PPLY HIS MIND AND RECORDED THE REASONS PURELY ON BORROWED SATISFACTIO N WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRIES ON HIS OWN AND THEREFORE THE R EASONS AS RECORDED ARE BAD IN LAW AS HELD BY ITAT DELHI BENCH VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 14/08/2014 (ITA NO. 4281/DEL/2010) IN THE CAS E OF ITO VS. COMERO LEASING & FINANCIAL PVT. LTD. WHICH WAS REND ERED AFTER RELYING ON JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. SUREN INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 357 I TR 24, RELEVANT PORTION OF SUCH ITAT JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED BELOW: FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT AT PARAGRAPH NOS.1, 2 & 3, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED THE FACTS IN GENERAL I.E., TH E INVESTIGATION CARRIED ON BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) AND THE FINDING OF SUCH INVESTIGATION, THE MODUS OPERANDI, HOW THE ENTRY OPERATOR WORKED. THE FACTS RELATING TO ASSESSEE'S CASE BEGIN IN ITA-4281 & 4949/D/2010 FRO M PARAGRAPH 4. IF WE PERUSE THE CHART GIVEN BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY WHICH HE FORMED AN OPINION THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF RS.53 LAKHS, WE FIND THAT S EVERAL ITEMS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED TWICE. ITEM NO.2 & 3, 4 & 5, 6 & 7, 8 & 9 AND 10 & 11 ARE SAME. THUS, OUT OF THE TOTAL TWELVE ITEMS, FIVE ITEMS HAV E BEEN ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 7 CONSIDERED TWICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS AN APPARENT CASE OF NON-APPLICATION OF MIND. WE FIND THAT THE IDENTI CAL CASE WAS CONSIDERED BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUREN INTERNATIONAL P.LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN, AT PAGE 32 OF THE REPORT, THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER:- ' 13 . W E H A V E H E A R D CO U N S E L F O R T H E P A R T I E S A T L E N G T H . 14. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ALLEGATION THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS BUT THE SAME CAN BE GLEANED FROM THE REASONS ITSELF. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTEN TION. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WE DO NOT FIND THE REASONS AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE REASONS IN LAW, AT ALL. A BARE PERUSA L OF THE TABLE OF ALLEGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES INCLUDED IN THE REASO NS AS RECORDED, DISCLOSES THAT THE SAME ENTRIES HAVE BEEN REPEATED SIX TIMES. THIS IS CLEARLY INDICATIVE OF THE CALLOUS MANNER IN WHICH T HE REASONS FOR INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE RECORDED AN D WE ARE UNABLE TO COUNTENANCE THAT ANY BELIEF BASED ON SUCH STATEMENTS CAN EVER BE ARRIVED AT. THE REASONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND AND THUS NO BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT CAN BE STATED TO HAVE BEEN FORMED BASED ON SUCH R E A SO N S A S R E CO R D E D . ' 8. THE FACTS IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE ARE IDENTICAL. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EXCEPT PREPARING THE TABLE OF AL LEGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM THE DETAILS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, HAS NOT AT ALL APPLIED HIS MIND . FROM A BARE PERUSAL OF THE TABLE OF THE ALLEGED ACC OMMODATION ENTRIES, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SAME ENTRIES HAVE BEEN REPEA TED FIVE TIMES. THIS IS THE CLEAR INDICATION OF NON- APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT WOULD BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE 'S CASE. ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 8 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIG H COURT ORDER, WE Q U A S H / C A N CE L T H E A SS E SS M E N T O R D E R P A SS E D U / S 147 / 143 ( 3 ) O F I . T . A C T D A T E D 28/03/2013 AS THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 IS BAD IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED THEREBY QU ASHING THE RE-ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 147/148. 6. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE FINDINGS, THOUGH WE NEED NOT TO ENTER INTO THE MERITS OF ADDITIONS, BUT SINCE BOTH THE PA RTIES HAVE MADE EXTENSIVE ARGUMENTS ON MERITS OF THE CASE, BASED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO DECIDE THE APPEALS ON ME RITS ALSO. 7. BY WAY OF GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHA LLENGED THE SUSTENANCE OF A DD I T I O N O F RS . 30 , 50 , 000 O N A CC O UN T O F S H A R E A PP L I C A T I O N M O N E Y U / S 68 O F I . T . ACT. AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FRESH SHARE AP PLICATION MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS.3,23,38,000 DURING THE YEAR U NDER C O N S I D E R A T I O N O U T O F W H I C H A O M A D E A DD I T I O N O F RS . 92 , 50 , 000 U / S 68 O F I . T . A C T (WRONGLY MENTIONED BY AO AS RS.90,50,000) ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM TH E FOLLOWING 8 COMPANIES, AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITS ELF. ON THE COST OF REPETITION, THE DETAILS OF SUCH COMPANIES A RE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : S.NO. SHARE APPLICANT COS. AMOUNT 1. VASUDEVA FARMS PVT. LTD. RS.16,50,000 2. GIRIASHO CO. PVT. LTD. RS.15,50,000 3. SJ SECURITIES PVT. LTD. RS.15,00,000 4. FNS CONSULTING PVT. LTD RS.15,00,000 5. OMNI FARMS PVT. LTD. RS.11,50,000 6. CHANDRA PRABHU FINVEST PVT. LTD. RS. 8,50,000 7. VIAGRA TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. RS. 6,50,000 8. ARUN FINVEST PVT. LTD. RS. 4,00,000 TOTAL RS. 92,50,000 ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 9 8. IT IS ALSO BORN OUT ON RECORD THAT IN ORDER TO P ROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAD F ILED PLENTY OF DOCUMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS WHICH ARE ALSO PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS, HOWEVER, SURPRISING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REFERRED TO EVEN A SINGLE DOCUMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EI THER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS WER E AS UNDER : (I) COPY OF SHARE APPLICATION FORMS (II) COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. (III) COPY OF CONFIRMATION. (IV) COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBER COS. (V) COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN. (VI) COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET (VII) COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. (VIII) FORM NO. 18 EVIDENCING THE CURRENT REGISTERED OFFIC E OF THE COMPANY. (IX) COMPANY MASTER DATA FROM ROC SITE EVIDENCING CURREN T REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE COMPANY AND THE STATUS OF ANNUAL FILING. (X) LIST OF CURRENT DIRECTORS WITH ADDRESSES AS PER MCA RECORDS (XI) ANNUAL RETURN AS PER FORM 23AC. COPY OF FORM NO. 2 AS FILED WITH ROC, NEW DELHI ALO NGWITH LIST OF ALLOTTEES IS ALSO PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK TO PROVE THAT SHARES WERE ALLOTTED AS ON 31/03/2005 TO ALL THE SHARE SUB SCRIBER COMPANIES FROM WHOM SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS REC EIVED ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 10 DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) DATED 06/03/2013 TO ALL THE ABOV E 8 SHARE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES, COPIES ARE PLACED IN THE PAPE R BOOK. IN RESPONSE TO SUCH NOTICES U/S 133(6), REPLIES ALONGW ITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AS RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWIN G 4 COMPANIES CONFIRMING THE INVESTMENT HAVING BEEN MAD E BY THEM IN THE ASSESSEE CO BY SUBSCRIBING TO THE SHARE CAPITAL HAVE ALSO BEEN PLACED ON RECORD, A FACT ALSO CONFIR MED BY THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER: (I) VASUDEVA FARMS PVT. LTD. RS.16,50,000 (II) GRIASHO CO. PVT. LTD. RS.15,50,000 (III) SJ SECURITIES PVT. LTD. RS.15,00,000 (IV) FNS CONSULTING PVT. LTD. RS.15,00,000 THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ABOVE ADDITION AGGREGATING T O RS.62,00,000 AS THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEI VED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS DULY CONFIRMED BY THE ABOVE MENTIONED SHARE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AGGREGATING TO RS.30,50,000/ - AS NO REPLIES WERE RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING 4 COMPANIE S THOUGH THE NOTICES U/S 133(6) WERE DULY SERVED ON THEM AS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER: (I) OMNI FARMS PVT. LTD., - RS.11,50,000 (II) CHANDRA PRABHU FINVEST PVT. LTD., - RS.8,50,000 (III) VIAGRA TRADING CO. PVT. LTD RS.6,50,000 (IV) ARUN FINVEST PVT. LTD., - RS.4,00,000 ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 11 O N T H E P E R U S AL O F T H E A SS E SS M E N T O R D E R A N D T H E O R D E R O F L D . C I T ( A ) , W E F I N D THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED 4 PARTIES CAME BACK UNSERVED OR SUCH PARTIES WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 133(6), IN F A C T P R O V E D T H E I D E N T I T Y O F S U C H P A R T I E S . M O R E O V E R , T H E F A C T T H A T N O T I CE S U / S 133(6) WERE SERVED ON THE 4 SHARE SUBSCRIBERS COMPA NIES, THOUGH NO REPLY HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM THEM, WAS NO T CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, FROM THIS ANGLE ALSO, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESS EE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES VIZ. SH ARE A PP L I C A T I O N F O R M , C O N F I R M A T I O N S , B A N K S T A T E M E N T S , B ALA N CE S H EE T S , I T RS , P ANS AND THEIR ROC RETURNS ETC. AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED OR DISPROVED BY THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. IN VIEW OF THIS MATTER IT IS HARD TO INFER THAT IT WAS ASSESSEES OWN UNDISCLOSED MONEY WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ALLEG ED SHARE SUBSCRIBERS IN THE GARB OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, AS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE GOES TO SUGGEST SUCH AN ADVERS E INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION P . LTD., 159 ITR 78, IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BEFORE THE INCOME- TAX OFFIC ER LETTERS OF CONFIRMATION, THE DISCHARGED HUNDIS AND PARTICULARS OF THE DIFFERENT CREDITORS GENERAL INDEX NUMBERS WERE WITH THE INCOME- TAX DEPARTMENT. ATTEMPTS HAD BEEN MADE TO BRING THOSE CREDITORS THEREFORE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER BY ISSUE OF NOTICES UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT, BUT THE SAID NOTICES W E R E R E T UR N E D W I T H T H E E N DO R S E M E N T ' L E F T ' . TH E I N CO M E - T A X O FF I C E R , T H E R E F O R E , TREATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF R. 1,50,000 AS UNPROVED CASH CREDIT AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, AT PAGE 84, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 12 IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE ALLEGED CREDITORS. IT WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE R EVENUE THAT THE SAID CREDITORS WERE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES. THEIR IND EX NUMBER WAS IN THE FILE OF THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE, APART FROM ISSUING NOTICES UNDER SECTION 131 AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, DID NOT PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER. THE REVENUE DID NOT EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE SAID ALLEGED CREDITORS TO FIND OUT WH ETHER THEY WERE CREDIT-WORTHY OR WERE SUCH WHO COULD ADVANCE THE AL LEGED LOANS. THERE WAS NO EFFORT MADE TO PURSUE THE SO CALLED AL LEGED CREDITORS. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DO A NY FURTHER. IN THE PREMISES, IF THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE BURDEN THAT LAY ON HIM THEN IT C OULD NOT BE SAID THAT SUCH A CONCLUSION WAS UNREASONABLE OR PERVERSE OR BASED ON NO EVIDENCE. IF THE CONCLUSION IS BASED ON SOME EVIDENCE ON WHICH A CONCLUSION COULD BE ARRIVED AT, NO QUESTION OF LAW AS SUCH ARISES. IN CIT VS. MAKHNI AND TYAGI (P) LTD. 267 ITR 433 (D EL) IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS UNDER: IF THE AO FELT THAT THEIR EXAMINATION WAS ABSOLUTE LY NECESSARY THEN HE COULD HAVE ENFORCED THEIR ATTENDANCE AS POINTED OUT BY AL LAHABAD HIGH COURT IN NATHU RAM PREMCHAND V. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 561 (ALL) AND E.M.C. (WORKS) (P) LTD. V. ITO (1963) 49 ITR 65 0 (ALL). THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT WHEN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PLACED ON RECORD TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF ALL THE SHAREHOLDER S INCLUDING THEIR PAN/GIR NUMBERS AND FILING OF OTHER DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF RATION CARD, ETC. WHICH HAD NEITHER BEEN CO NTROVERTER NOR DISAPPROVED BY THE AO, THEN NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. I N N A T HU R A M P R E M C H A N D V S . C I T , 49 I T R 561 ( A LL ) , I T W A S H E L D A S UN D E R : NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE MER ELY BECAUSE THE ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 13 ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A DASTI SUMMONS FOR PRODUCTION O F A WITNESS AND HAD NOT PRODUCED HIM. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO ENFORCE THE ATTENDANCE OF THE WITNESS IF HIS EVIDENCE IS MATERI AL, IN EXERCISE OF HIS PO W E R S U N D E R S E C T I O N 37(1) O F T H E I N CO M E - T A X A C T , R E A D W I T H O R D E R X V I , RU L E I O , O F T H E C I V I L P R OC E D UR E C OD E . THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1834/D EL/2015 FOR AY 2004-05 IN THE CASE OF ESPIRIT FINCO PVT. LTD., HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE NOTICES HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON THESE PARTIES. THUS, IN A CASE WHERE 4 OUT OF 6 CONCERNS ADMITTEDL Y REPLY THE TWO WHO THOUGH DO NOT REPLY BUT THEIR EVIDENCES REMAIN UNAS SAILED PER SE CANNOT BE THE REASON FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE FACTS WHERE ALL DETAILS ARE AV AILABLE NOTICE U/S 133(6) HAVE BEEN SERVED, FOUR HAVE REPLIED THUS, IF THE DE PARTMENT STILL HAD ANY FURTHER DOUBTS ABOUT THEIR EXISTENCE OR GENUINENESS THEN THEIR PRESENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCED AS THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE SE TWO CONCERNS WERE KNOWN TO THE DEPARTMENT AS NOTICES WERE SERVED UPON THESE PARTIES AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IS A FACT ON RECORD. IN THE AFORE-MEN TIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REQUEST OF THE REVENUE TO DIRECT YET ANOTHER REMAND DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. IT IS SEEN THAT WHEN THE E VIDENCES ON RECORD ARE CONSIDERED QUA THE STATED BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, I FIND THAT THE ADDITION ON MERITS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAKAM MONEY MATTERS PVT. LTD. ARE REPROD UCED BELOW: IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT EXTENSIVE MATERIAL WAS P RODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE COMPANIES WHO HAD SUBSCRIBED TO ITS SHARES. AMONG T HE MATERIALS PRODUCED WERE THE INCOME TAX RETURNS AND THE PAN CA RD DETAILS OF THE EIGHT COMPANIES. EVEN IF THE DIRECTORS OF THESE COM PANIES DID NOT RESPOND TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE AO, IT WAS NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AO TO MAKE PROPER ENQUIRIES TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF TH ESE ENTITIES AND SATISFY ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 14 H I M S E L F O F T H E I R C R E D I T W O R T H I N E SS . A S PO I N T E D O U T BY T H E C I T( A ) , T H E A O FAILED TO MAKE ANY EFFORT IN THAT DIRECTION. HE DID NOT TAKE TO THE LOGICAL END THE HALF-HEARTED ATTEMPT AT GETTING THE DIRECTORS T O APPEAR BEFORE HIM. HE DID NOT EVEN SEEK THE ASSISTANCE OF THE AOS OF THE CONCERNED COMPANIES WHOSE ITRS AND PAN CARD COPIES HAD BEEN PRODUCED. THE OBSERVATIONS OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF PR. CIT VS. KESHA APPLIANCES PVT. LTD., ARE AS UNDER: WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED AL L THE NECESSARY DETAILS OF THE AFORESAID SIX COMPANIES ALONG WITH PAN BUT NONE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE CONFIRMED THE SAME FROM THE AOS H AVING JURISDICTION OVER THE SIX AFORESAID COMPANIES. THUS THE ASSESSEE CANNOT B E PENALIZED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SIX COMPANIES AS DISCUSSED ABOV E FAILED TO REPLY TO THE NOTICES ISSUED TO THEM UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. FOLLOWING FINDINGS REACHED BY ITAT DELHI BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 23/02/2018 (ITA NO. 5955/DEL/2014) IN THE CASE OF U MBRELLA PROJECT PVT. L T D . V S . I T O , S U PPO R T T H E C A S E O F A SS E SS EE A S UN D E R : DE HORSE THE NON-RECEIPT OF THE REPLY, EVEN FOR TH E SAKE OF ARGUMENT WE ASSUME THAT THE AO HAS NOT RECEIVED THE REPLY, STIL L THE FACT REMAINS THAT 133(6) NOTICE WERE SERVED ON THESE FOUR SHAREHOLDER S. ON GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE NOTE THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT NOTICES HAVE COME BACK UNSERVED OR THESE SHAREHOLDERS WERE NOT A VAILABLE AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THAT BE SO, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE MERELY BECAUSE REPLY HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE AO IN RESPONSE TO NOTI CE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6). THE AO HAVING ISSUE THE NOTICE AND SUCH NOT ICE HAVING BEEN SERVED ON THE PERSON CONCERNED, THE AO HAS TO TAKE THE PRO CESS TO THE LOGICAL END. HE CANNOT DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCE MERELY BECAUSE REPLY HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED. SUBMISSION OF THE REPLY IN AN INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE AO BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133( 6) FROM THE PERSON CONCERNED DIRECTLY IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE. THE AO MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN NOTICE IS N OT SERVED OR WHEN AN ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 15 ADVERSE REPLY IS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISS UED BY HIM UNDER SECTION 133(6), BUT MERELY NONRECEIPT OF REPLY CAN BE A JUS TIFICATION FOR DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCE. OUR THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY TH E JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORA TION 159 ITR 78 WHERE A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS COME UP. 9. THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL THE DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCES AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CRE DITWORTHINESS IS NOT CONTROVERTED OR DISPROVED BY THE AO BY BRINGING SOM E MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE ONUS WHICH LAY ON THE ASSESSEE STOOD DISCHARGED AND THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE I T ACT COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED: (I). 319 ITR (STATUTES) 5 (SUPREME COURT) WHILE DISMISSI NG THE S. L. P. AS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS P. LTD. (II). 361 ITR 220 CIT VS. KAMDHENU STEELS AND ALLOYS LTD. (JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HC) AGAINST WHICH SLP FILED B Y THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ADMITTED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED 17/09/2012 (III). PR. CIT VS. A.R. LEASING PVT. LTD. (JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HC)ITAT D E L H I O R D E R I N T H E C A S E O F A I R A D S L T D . V S . A C I T . (IV). ITAT DELHI BENCH ORDER IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S TRN ENGERGY PVT. LTD. (V). ITAT DELHI BENCH ORDER IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL CIRCL E VS. M/S RAVNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (VI). ITAT DELHI BENCH ORDER IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL CIRCL E VS. M/S SHYAM INDUS POWER SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (VII). ITAT DELHI BENCH ORDER IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S N ISHIT FINCAP PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 16 (VIII). ITAT DELHI BENCH ORDER IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S P INKU LANDFIN PVT. LTD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, PLETHORA OF DECISI ON RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES P LACED ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ALL THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES; THAT IT NO CASE IS MADE OUT BY THE REVENUE THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED BY THE SHARE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES BEFORE ISSUING CH EQUES ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY; THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO EITHER CONTROVERT OR DISPROVE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCES AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE; THAT NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AG AINST THE ASSESSEE, EVEN IF REPLIES WERE NOT RECEIVED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRI BERS COMPANIES THOUGH THE NOTICES U/S 133(6) WERE DULY SERVED ON THEM; TH AT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT NOTICES HAD COME BACK UNSERVED OR SHARE SUB SCRIBER COMPANIES WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE CO.; THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR ARE SQUARELY AP PLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CASE AND GO TO SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE; AND THAT, THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO CONCLUDE THAT T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY PRODUCED SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE INCLUDING THE CONFIRMATIONS, B ANK STATEMENTS, BALANCE SHEETS, ROC RECORDS, ITRS & PAN INDICATING WARD/CIRCLE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS WHERE THEY WERE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND HENCE, THE ONUS WHICH LAY ON THE ASSESSEE TO PR OVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE SUBSC RIBER COMPANIES STOOD DULY DISCHARGED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 10. AS FAR AS GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING ADDITION SUSTAINED U/S. 69C ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION/PREMIUM ALLEGEDLY PAID @ 1% T O ENTRY OPERATORS OUT OF ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR RECEIVING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.30,50,00 0, IS CONCERNED, IN VIEW OF DELETION OF CONNECTED ADDITION OF RS.30,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 69C OF TH E ACT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL ALSO DESERVES TO ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 17 BE ALLOWED. 11. ADVERTING TO REVENUES APPEAL, WE OBSERVE THAT FIRS TLY, AS PER OUR ABOVE FINDINGS, ONCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER STANDS QUASHED BEING VOID AB IGNITIO ON LEGAL ASPECT OF THE CASE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE DOES NOT SURVIVE. SECONDLY, WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE FACTS WITH RE GARD TO FRESH SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE WHILE DISPOSING OF GRO UND NO. 2 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. ADMITTEDLY, FRESH SHARE APPLICATION MONEY O F RS.62,00,000 WAS RAISED FROM 4 COMPANIES, NAMELY VASUDEVA FARMS PVT. LTD. , GRIASHO CO. PVT. LTD. , S.J SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AND FNS CONSULTING PVT. LTD. TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF SUCH PARTIES, THEIR CONFIRMATIONS, BANK STATEMENTS, BALANCE SHEETS, ROC RECORDS, ITRS & PAN INDICATING WARD/CIRCLE WHERE THEY W E R E A SS E SS E D T O I N C O M E T A X W E R E F I L E D . M O R E O V E R , N O T I CE S U / S 133 ( 6 ) W E R E ISSUED TO THE ABOVE SHARE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES AND REPLIES SUPPORTED BY DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE WERE RECEIVED, CONFIRMING THEIR INVESTMENTS HAVING MADE BY THEM IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION M ONEY. ACCORDINGLY, IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETI NG THIS ADDITION OF RS.62,00,000/-. IN VIEW OF OUR DISCUSSION MADE ON T HE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THAT SIMILAR EVIDENCES WERE ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESP ECT TO THESE SHARE APPLICANTS, OUR CONCLUSIONS REACHED IN APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE ON MERIT OF ADDITION SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, THE RELEVANT GROUND RAISED BY THE REVE NUE DOES NOT HOLD GOOD. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED ONE MORE GROUND IN ITS APPEA L THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO JUSTIFY HIGH PREMIUM PAID FOR SHARES IS FOUND NOT LEGALLY TENABLE AS SUCH ISSUE DOES NOT EMANATE OUT OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, AS NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RAISED ANY SUCH OBJECTION IN THEIR O R D E RS . M O R E O V E R , J U R I S D I C T I O N AL D E L H I H . C . I N T H E C A S E O F P R . C I T V S . AR L E A S I N G PVT. LTD. (COPY PLACED ON RECORD) HAS HELD THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF HIGH PREMIUM PAID FOR SHARES CANNOT B E SUSTAINED UNLESS AND UNTIL SOME MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO SHOW THAT ITA NO. 2052/DEL/2018 PAGE | 18 CONFIRMATION AND OTHER EVIDENCES PLACED BY THE ASSE SSEE WERE NOT GENUINE. NO SUCH MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BE FORE US. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT SUFFER FROM A NY INFIRMITY WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.62,00,000/-. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS FOUND DEVOID OF MERITS AND IS LIABLE TO FAIL.