Adbhut Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., , Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 2404/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4983 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: MIRAJ D. SHAH
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Question of law; Onus to prove
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 142(1); 147; 131; 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO.2404/KOL/2017 ADBHUT VINIMAY PVT. LTD. A.Y.2 012-13 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH D KOL KATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM] ITA NO.2404/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 ADBHUT VINIMAY PVT. LTD. . -VERSUS- I.T.O., WARD-4 (3), KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN: AAFCA 2911 C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI MIRAJ D.SHAH, AR FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI M.K.BISWAS, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 04.09.2018. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.10.2018. ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(A)-13, DATED 18.09.201 7 PASSED U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT ) RELATING TO A.Y. 2012-13 . 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY. THE ISSUE THAT ARISE S FOR OUR ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER AN ADDITION CAN BE MADE OF AN AMOUNT WHICH IS RECEI VED BY SALE OF AN ASSET I.E. SHARES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS INVESTMENTS FROM EARLIER Y EARS. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS SOLD EQUITY SHARES TO M/S GRADE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD, M/S KRITIMAAN TIE-UP PVT. LTD AND JHANKAR DEALERS PVT. LTD. THE AO ISSUED SU MMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO ALL THE PURCHASERS OF THE SHARES. THEY FILED DETAILS IN RESPONSE. HE HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE CREDITS ARE NOT EXPLAINED AND M ADE AN ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT AS NONE OF THE DIRECTORS APPEARED BEFORE HIM. AGGRIEVE D THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. FURTHER AGGRIEVED THE ASSESEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.2404/KOL/2017 ADBHUT VINIMAY PVT. LTD. A.Y.2 012-13 2 3. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, CONSIDERING TH E PAPERS ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CASE LAWS CITED WE HOLD A S FOLLOWS :- THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR SOLD ITS INVESTMENTS I .E. SHARES PURCHASED BY IT IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND DISCLOSED BY IT AS ITS ASSTS/ INVESTMENT IN THE BALANCE SHEET, TO THREE COMPANIES. THE DETAILS ARE AS UNDER :- S.NO. NAME ADDRESS PAN TOTAL AMOUNT 1. KRITMAAN TIE UP PVT. LTD. P-22, SWALLOW LANE, GROUND FLOOR, KOLKATA- 700001. AADCK7798K 10,00,000 2. GRADE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD. 14/2, OLD CHINA BAZAR STREET, 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO.1391A, KOLKATA-700001. AAECG0150E 32,50,000 3. JHANKAR DEALERS PVT. LTD. P-22, SWALLOW LANE, GROUND FLOOR, KOLKATA- 700001. AACCJ2416N 20,00,000 TOTAL 62,50,000 4. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF T HE ACT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SALE OF INVESTMENTS TO THE AO. IN RESP ONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT ISSUED BY THE AO, TO THE PURCHASERS COMPANIES, THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO BY ALL THE THREE COMPANIES WHICH PURCHASED THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY. (A) COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN (B) COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION (C) COPY OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS (D) COPY OF SHARE SALE INVOICE (E)COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SHARE PURCHASER COMPANY THE AO WANTED THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE DIRECT ORS OF THE PURCHASER COMPANIES. AS THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE THIS ADDITION U/S 68 IS MADE. IN OUR VIEW THIS IS AGAINST THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ORISSA CORPORATION(P)LTD (1986)159 ITR 78 (SC). WE FIND THAT THE SHARE PURCHASERS ARE ALL INCOME TAX ASSESSES AND THEY HAVE FILED RET URN OF INCOME AND THE PAYMENTS ITA NO.2404/KOL/2017 ADBHUT VINIMAY PVT. LTD. A.Y.2 012-13 3 WERE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THE SHA RE PURCHASERS HAVE CONFIRMED PURCHASE OF THE SHARES. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WITH T HE REVENUE THAT THE SALE IN QUESTION IS A BOGUS SALE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ISSUE IS WHETHER ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO ADDITI ON CAN BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. THE ASSES SEE HAS DISCHARGED THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT IS ON IT. THERE IS NO CONTRARY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORDS BY THE AO TO DISPROVE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ADDITION HAS BE EN MADE ON SUSPICION AND SURMISES. 5. THE DELHI G BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2264/DEL/2013 IN THE CASE OF ITO VS M/S SRISHTI FINCAP PVT. LTD. ORDER DATED 07. 10.2015 HELD AS FOLLOWS : 9. FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, S UBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES AND CASE LAW CITED IN THIS CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONS IDERED VIEW THAT NO GROUND IS MADE OUT TO INTERFERE INTO THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I) THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, A.O. HAS MERELY ACTED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY DIT (INV.) AND HAS NOT PREFERRED TO ANALYZE THE PREVIOU S RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE OUT IF HE HAS ALREADY DISCLOSED THE PURCHASE O F SHARES IN QUESTION. II) THAT FROM THE PERUSAL OF COPIES OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 L YING AT PAGES 45-46 OF THE LEDGER BOOK, IN LEDGER ACCOUNT SHOWING PURCHASE OF SHARES QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 LYING AT PAGE 34 WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY THE A.O., IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE SHARES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. III) THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE SHARES FOR RS.25,10,000/- UNDISPUTEDLY PURCHASED BY HIM IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, NO ADV ERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST HIM. IV) THAT WHEN PURCHASED SHARES NOW SOLD BY THE ASSE SSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04 HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YE AR, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PUT TO SUCH A SITUATION TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF BUYER IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. MOREOVER, THE SELLER CAN MAKE SALE OF SHARES IN CAS H U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. V) THAT WHEN ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.25, 10,000/- AS SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES AS INCOME, THERE IS NO GROUND FOR MAKING THE SAME AS ADDITION IN THE INCOME WHICH WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. VI) THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY ASSESSE E HAVE NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY THE A.O. NOR HE HAS HELD THAT THE PURCHASE OF SHARES WA S BOGUS TRANSACTION OR THE SHARES SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BOGUS ONE. ITA NO.2404/KOL/2017 ADBHUT VINIMAY PVT. LTD. A.Y.2 012-13 4 VII) IN I.T.O. VS JATIN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. (SUPRA ), IT IS HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE SHARES IN EARLIER YEAR WHICH WERE SHO WN AS INVESTMENT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET THEN THE ASSESSEE SOLD CERTAIN INVESTMENTS AND ACCOUNTED FOR THE PROFIT OR LOSS, THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE. VIII) SIMILARLY, HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CITED AS CIT VS VISHAL HOLDING AND CAPITAL PVT. LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 9TH AUGUST, 2010 UPHELD THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2009 OF THE ITAT IN I.T.A. NO. 1788/DEL /2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 WHEREIN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAKIN G THE SIMILAR DELETION WAS UPHELD BY OBSERVING IN PARA 6 AS UNDER:- 'WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED COPIES ) OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS AND CONTRACT NOTES ISSUED BY M/S. MKM FINSEC PVT. LTD., AND HAD BEEN MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PER COMPANIES ACT . THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DEMONSTRATED THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OVER A PERIOD OF TIME A S SEEN FROM THE BALANCE SHEET. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY ACTED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING WITHOUT VERIFYING THE DETAIL S FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED BEST POSSIBLE EVIDENCE T O SUPPORT ITS CLAIM. CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT B E SUSTAINED.' IX) THAT THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS SQUARELY COVER ED BY THE JUDGEMENTS: VISHAL HOLDING AND CAPITAL PVT. LTD. AND JATIN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AS THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS PURCHASED THE SHARES TO THE TUNE OF RS.25,10,000/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND THEN CREDITED THE RECEI PT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES TO THE TUNE OF RS.25,10,000/- TO ITS P & L ACCOUNT, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED AND CONSIDERED AS ITS INCOME BY THE APPELLANT / ASS ESSEE. SO LD. CIT(A) HAS LEGALLY AND RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.25,10,000/- VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER. 11. AS A SEQUEL TO THE DISCUSSION MADE IN THE PRECE DING PARAGRAPHS AND IN VIEW OF THE RATIO OF JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF VISHAL HOLDIN G AND CAPITAL PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PR OVED TO HAVE PURCHASED THE SHARES OF RS.25,10,000/- IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMEN T YEAR DULY SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND THEN SOLD THE SAME AND SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.25,10,000/- AS SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SHARE AS INCOME, THE PROVISIONS CON TAINED IN SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED AND HOLDING THE SAME AS INCOME WO ULD TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW AND AS SUCH, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. CONSEQUENTLY, NO GROUND TO INTERFERE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS HEREBY DIS MISSED. 6. THE HONBLE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF ITO VS JATIN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.4325 & 4326/KOL/2009 ORDER DATED 27.05.2015 HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 11. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ITA NO.2404/KOL/2017 ADBHUT VINIMAY PVT. LTD. A.Y.2 012-13 5 ASSESSEE WAS HAVING INVESTMENT IN SHARES ETC. WHICH WERE DULY SHOWN ON THE ASSET ASIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET, OUT OF THOSE INVESTMENT S SOME WERE SOLD AND FEW NEW WERE PURCHASED AND IF THERE WAS ANY GAIN ON THE SAL E THE SAME WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN EARLIER YEAR 13 4325 & 4326/ DEL/2009 UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS DELETED BY THE I.T.A.T. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE SHARES WHICH WERE EARLIER PURCHAS ED IN DIFFERENT YEARS AND DULY SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE RESPECTIVE YEARS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE SALE PROCEEDS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE INV ESTMENTS WERE REDUCED AFTER MAKING THE SALES. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS N O OBLIGATION UNDER THE LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF PA YEE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAD NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND T HE PURCHASES WERE DULY ACCEPTED SO THERE WAS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE SALES. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THI S BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S VISHAL HOLDING AND CAPITAL PVT. LTD . IN ITA NO. 1788/DEL/2009 ORDER DATED 17.07.2009 WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'B LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS REPORTED IN (2011) 200 TAXMAN 186 (DELHI). IT WA S FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, DEL HI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. GOODWILL CRESEC PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 4151/DEL./2010 ORDER DATED 25.01.2012. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES LAW S :- 14 4325 & 4326/ DEL/2009 '1. CIT VS. SH. UDIT NARAI N AGGARWAL, ITA NO. 560 OF 2009, DT. 12.12.2012 2. CIT VS. SUDEEP GOENKA, ITA NO. 468 OF 2009, DT. 3.01.2013. 3. CIT VS. ANIRUDH NARAIN AGGARWAL, ITA NO . 195 OF 2010, DT. 16.01.2013.' IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SAME ISSUE HAS BEEN DEC IDED BY THE I.T.A.T. IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN I.T.A.T. NO. 1584/DEL./2009 FOR THE A.Y . 2002-03 VIDE ORDER DATED 13.11.2009, IN ASSESSEE'S FAVOUR (COPY OF THE ORDER WAS FURNISHED WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD) 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE SHARES IN EARLIER YEARS WHICH WERE SH OWN AS INVESTMENT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND REFLECTED IN THE 'ASSET SIDE' OF TH E 'BALANCE SHEET', OUT OF THOSE INVESTMENTS (COPY WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 23 AN D 24 OF THE ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK), THE ASSESSEE SOLD CERTAIN INVESTMENTS AND AC COUNTED FOR THE PROFIT / LOSS AND OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS NEITHER A LOAN OR THE DEPOSIT , IT WAS ALSO NOT ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF INVESTMEN T THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE AND THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTL Y DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. ITA NO.2404/KOL/2017 ADBHUT VINIMAY PVT. LTD. A.Y.2 012-13 6 13. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VISHAL HOLDING AND CAPITAL PVT. LTD . VIDE ORDER DATED 9TH AUGUST, 2010 UPHELD THE ORDER DATED 30.7.2009 OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 1788/D EL/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 WHEREIN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAKIN G THE SIMILAR DELETION WAS UPHELD BY OBSERVING IN PARA 6 AS UNDER :- 'WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED COPIES OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS AND CONTRACT NOTES ISSUED BY M/S. MKM FINSEC PVT. LTD., AND HAD BEEN MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PER COMPANIES ACT . THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DEMONSTRATED THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OVER A PERIOD OF TIME A S SEEN FROM THE BALANCE SHEET'S. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY AC TED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING WITHOUT VERIFYING THE D ETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED BEST POSSIBLE EVIDEN CE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM. CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.' 14. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCO RDINGLY, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. IN ITA NO. 4326/DEL. /2009 OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05 IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS IS IN VOLVED, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IN THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER, IN RESPECT OF 1 6 4325 & 4326/ DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTAND IS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 14. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). A CCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. IN ITA NO. 4326/DEL./2009 OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05 IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIM ILAR FACTS IS INVOLVED, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IN THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION WHICH WAS D ELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN FORMER PART OF THI S ORDER, IN RESPECT OF 16 4325 & 4326/ DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, SHALL APP LY MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 7. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRIN CIPAL C.I.T. VS JATIN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. [2017 ] TMI 342 (DELHI) HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 4. THE ITAT AGREED WITH THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE CIT (A) UPON ITS INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD. IT ALSO DISCOUNTED THE R EVENUE'S SUBMISSIONS THAT THE INVESTMENT SHOWN IN THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS AND REFLEC TED AS ASSETS IN THE SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROPERLY TREATED AN D THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH TREATMENT .SECTION 68 APPLIES. THE ITAT REJECTED TH IS CONTENTION AND HELD - BASED UPON THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED IN CIT V. VISHAF HOLDING & CAPITAL PVT. LTD. (ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 9.8.2010) THAT THE INVOC ATION OF SECTION'68 IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS UNWARRANTED. 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE REITERATED THE G ROUNDS CITED IN SOME OF THE CONTENTIONS MADE BEFORE THE ITAT. LEARNED COUNSEL E SPECIALLY EMPHASIZED ON THE ITA NO.2404/KOL/2017 ADBHUT VINIMAY PVT. LTD. A.Y.2 012-13 7 SUBMISSION THAT THE INCORRECT REFLECTION OF THE REC EIPTS IN THE BALANCE SHEET BELIED THE TRUE NATURE OF THE RECEIPTS AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 68 . 6. THE ITAT IN OUR OPINION QUITE CORRECTLY APPRECIA TED THE LAW AND ITS APPLICATION BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, I.E., CIT (A). HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND THE NATURE OF THE ANALYSIS BASED UPON THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, AS WELL AS THE RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS WITH RESP ECT TO THE TRUE NATURE OF SECTION 68, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES; THE APPEALS ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED 8. APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE CASE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE AC T FOR THE REASONS CITED ABOVE. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24.10.2018. SD/- SD/- [S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI] [ J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 24.10.2018. [RG SR.PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ADBHUT VINIMAY PVT. LTD., C/O D.J.SHAH & CO., KA LYAN BHAWAN, 2, ELGIN ROAD, KOLKATA-700020. 2. I.T.O., WARD-4 (3), KOLKATA. 3. C.I.T.(A)-13, KOLKATA 4. C.I.T-2, KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA.