ITO, New Delhi V. M/s Rakam Money Matters P. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2821/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81911 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR CHOPRA SENIOR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of cross examination; Question of law; Accommodation entries; Onus to prove
• Section: 131; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2821/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) ITO, WARD 15 (2), VS. M/S. RAKAM MONEY MATTERS P. LTD., NEW DELHI. A 3/207, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI. (PAN : AAACR4028G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VED JAIN, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR CHOPRA, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-XVIII, NEW DELHI DATED 18.03.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS SUBMITTED ON 02.11 .2003 DECLARING INCOME AT RS.5,64,556/-. THE CASE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 19.02.2010. THIS REOPENING WAS BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATIO N WING WITH REGARD TO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER READ AS UNDER :- ITA NO.2821/DEL/2011 2 IT WAS NOTICED FROM THE LIST OF ENTRIES THAT THE ASSESSEE M/S RAKAM MONEY MATTERS (P) LTD. HAS TAKEN THE FOLL OWING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSON AS PE R DETAILS HEREUNDER:- AMOUNT INSTRUMENT NO. DATE NAME OF ENTRY PROVIDER NA ME OF BANK NAME OF BRANCH A/C NO. 500750 697367 30-JUL-02 CHANAKYA FINVEST P. LTD. CORPN KB 3675 500750 26-SEP-02 ROYAL CREDITS P.LTD. SBP DG 50078 FURTHER IT WAS ALSO NOTICED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RECEIVED SHA RE APPLICATION MONEY FROM M/S TEAM PLUS SECURITIES LTD , M/S MPN FINCAP PVT. LTD, M/S NEELKANT SHARES P. LTD, M/ S ASHIAN NEEDLES P. LTD, M/S PARAS FINCAP P. LTD AND M/S KVF SECURITIES P. LTD, WHO ARE ALSO MENTIONED IN THE SA ID REPORT AS ENTRY PROVIDERS. IN ORDER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT OF RS.60 LACS AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, THE ASSESSEE WAS V IDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 15/12/2010 ASKED TO PRODUCE THE D IRECTORS OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED COMPANIES FROM WHICH SHARE APPL ICATION MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY D ATED 22/12/2010, AND NOBODY WAS PRODUCED. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.60,00,000/-, VIDE LETTER DATED 22.12.2010 FILED COPY OF ITRS SHARE APPLICATION FORMS ETC AND AFFIDAVIT OF THE DI RECTORS OF THESE COMPANIES. SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO THE DIRECTO RS OF THESE COMPANIES FOR 28.12.2010. HOWEVER NONE ATTEND ED. ALTHOUGH THE RECEIPTS OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.60 LACS WAS THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, THIS FACT BY ITSELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROOF THE GENUINENESS OF THE PERS ONS WHO GAVE THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OR THEIR CREDITWOR THINESS. A PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED COMPANIES REVEAL AS WELL AS PROVE THAT THEY ARE MERE CONDUITS UTILIZED BY THE ENTRY OPERATORS FOR PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATI ON ENTRIES TO INTERESTED PARTIES. THE BALANCES IN THEIR BANK A CCOUNTS ARE ITA NO.2821/DEL/2011 3 VERY LOW ON A GIVEN DATE AFTER WHICH SUBSTANTIAL AM OUNTS ARE DEPOSITED EITHER BY CHEQUES OR BY CASH TO INCREASE THE BALANCE BUT INVARIABLE WITHIN A DAY OR TWO THE SAME IS WITH DRAWN OR TRANSFERRED TO SOME OTHER ACCOUNT BRINGING THE BALA NCE DOWN. THE PROCESS IS REPEATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN MANY TI MES ALTHOUGH THE P&L A/C OF THE ASSESSEE REVEALS NO BUS INESS ACTIVITY WORTHY OF MENTION. IT IS FURTHER SEEN FROM THE TABLE GIVE ABOVE THAT I N RESPECT OF ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED SHARE APPLICANTS , NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED ON LOANS AND ADVANCES AND ALSO NO INTEREST HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THESE COMPANIES. THE DIRECTORS OF THESE COMPANIES DO NOT PUT IN ANY WORK. IT IS NOT POSSIBL E THAT THESE COMPANIES WORK FOR NO GAIN/INCOME. THESE SHARE APPL ICANTS IN THIS CASE DO NOT HAVE ANY SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE S TATURE THAT WOULD ENABLE THEM TO GIVE LARGE AMOUNTS OF SHARE AP PLICATION MONEY AS HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE COM PANY. THE ONUS TO PROVE THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS SQUARELY L AY ON THE ASSESSEE BUT IT HAS TOTALLY FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON IT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE LEFT THAN TO DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE REGARDING THE CREDITWORTH INESS OF THE FOUR SHARE APPLICANTS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DAT ED 15.12.2010 ASKED TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE CO MPANIES FROM WHICH THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAS BEEN REC EIVED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THEM AND HENCE HAS NO T DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. HENCE I HOLD THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEI VED OF RS.85 LAKH FROM M/S TEAM PLUS SECURITIES LTD, M/ S MPN FINCAP PVT. LTD, M/S NEELKANT SHARES P. LTD, M/S AS HIAN NEEDLES P. LTD, M/S PARAS FINCAP P. LTD, M/S KVF SE CURITIES P. LTD, AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF IT ACT. 2.1 THE CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 5.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE REASSESSMENT O RDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR ON THE ABOVE ISS UE. IT IS ARGUED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE IMPUGNED SHARE APPLIC ATION MONEY OF RS.60,00,000/- HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM 8 CO MPANIES, ITA NO.2821/DEL/2011 4 VIZ. M/S TEAM PLUS SECURITIES LTD. (RS.500000/-), M /S. CHANAKYA FINVEST PVT. LTD. (RS.500000/-), M/S. MPN FINCAP PVT. LTD. (RS.1150000/-), M/S. NEELKANT SHARES P LT D. (RS.350000/-), M/S. ASHIAN NEEDLES P. LTD. (RS.1000 000/-), M/S. PARAS FINCAP P. LTD. (RS.1000000/-), M/S. ROYA L CREDIT PVT. LTD. (RS.500000/-) AND M/S KVF SECURITIES P LTD.(RS.1000000/-). ALL THE ABOVE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN PAID BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED COPI ES OF CONFIRMATION I AFFIDAVIT FROM THE SAID COMPANIES CO NFIRMING THE PAYMENT OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT AS SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY, COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS, COPIES OF INCOME-TAX RET URNS, COPY OF PAN CARDS, COPIES OF DEMAND DRAFTS, BALANCE SHEE TS, COPY OF CERTIFICATES OF INCORPORATION AND MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION, COPY OF ROC DETAILS SHOWING THE STA TUS OF THE COMPANIES AS 'ACTIVE', COPY OF SHARE APPLICATION FO RMS ETC. OF THE RESPECTIVE INVESTOR COMPANIES BEFORE THE AO IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. IT IS ARGUED BY THE ID. AR THAT THE APPE LLANT HAS DISCHARGED ITS INITIAL ONUS WITH REGARD TO THE ABOV E TRANSACTIONS. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BE EN MADE BY THE AO MERELY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING WHICH WAS AT THE BACK OF THE APP ELLANT AND DUE TO NON-PRODUCTION OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES. FURTHER, IT IS ARGUED THAT OPPORTUNITY O F CROSS EXAMINATION WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT. IT I S ALSO ARGUED THAT EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE INVESTOR COMPA NIES BEING BOGUS, AS ALLEGED, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 68 I N THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE ID. AR HAS ACCORDINGL Y ARGUED THAT THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.60,00,000/- U/S 68 M ADE BY THE AO IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS ILLEGAL . THE LD. AR HAS RELIED UPON A PLETHORA OF CASE LAWS IN SUPPO RT OF HIS CLAIM. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER, I FI ND THAT THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR CANNOT BE REJECTED O N MERIT. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD AN Y VALID MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THE CLAIM OF THE APPE LLANT IN THIS REGARD. 5.2. FURTHER, I FIND THAT THE ESTABLISHED LEGAL PO SITION ON THE SUBJECT UNDER CONSIDERATION AS ADOPTED IN A LARGE N UMBER OF CASE LAWS IS AS FOLLOWS :- 5.2.1. AS HELD IN THE CASE OF R.B. MITTAL V. CIT 24 6 ITR 283 (AP) IN AN ENQUIRY U/S 68, THE RULE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTERM HAS TO BE OBSERVED AND THE ASSESSEE MUST BE GIVEN A FAI R AND ITA NO.2821/DEL/2011 5 REASONABLE HEARING TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN CAST ON HIM U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 5.2.2. FURTHER, IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT IN THE MATTE R OF CASH CREDIT, THE INITIAL ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION ALONGWITH THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDE R/INVESTOR AND HIS CREDITWORTHINESS. HAVING DONE SO, THE APPEL LANT IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON IT. BEYOND THIS, FOR THE CHARGE OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT TO STICK, THE ONUS LIES ON THE AO TO DISPROVE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY ESTABLISHING THAT THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FALSE A ND BY BRINGING NEW MATERIAL ON RECORD AND FAILURE TO DO S O WOULD VITIATE THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS COUNT. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD CAN BE MADE THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. 158 ITR 78 (SC) AND CIT V. RO HINI BUILDERS 256 ITR 360 (GUJ.). IT WAS ALSO HELD IN TH E CASE OF CIT V. BEDI & CO. P. LTD. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC) T HAT WHERE PRIMA-FACIE THE INFERENCE ON FACTS IS THAT THE ASSE SSEE'S EXPLANATION IS PROBABLE, THE ONUS WILL SHIFT TO THE REVENUE TO DISPROVE IT AND THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION IN SUCH CASE CANNOT BE REJECTED ON MERE SURMISES. FURTHER, IT WAS HEL D IN KHANDELWAL CONSTRUCTIONS V. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (GAU.) THAT SINCE THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO IS THE BASIS FOR INVOCATION OF THE POWERS U/S 68, SUCH SATISFACTION MUST BE DER IVED FROM RELEVANT FACTORS ON THE BASIS OF PROPER INQUIRY BY THE AO AND SUCH INQUIRY MUST BE REASONABLE AND JUST. 5.2.3. IT IS ALSO SETTLED LAW THAT IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE AO TO CONFRONT THE ASSESSEE WITH ANY MATERIAL COLLECTED B Y THE AO AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE, AND IN CASE OF STATEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RECORDED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE, OPPORTUNITY O F CROSS EXAMINATION HAS TO BE OFFERED TO THE ASSESSEE, FAIL ING WHICH THE SAID MATERIAL/STATEMENT ETC. WILL BE RENDERED ON UN RELIABLE AND ADDITIONS MADE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH MATERIAL/STATEM ENT ETC. SHALL BE RENDERED ILLEGAL. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD CAN BE MADE TO THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF R.B. SHREERAM DURGA PRASAD 176 ITR 169 (SC), 125 ITR 713 (SC), JINDAL VEGETABL E (ORDER OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 428 OF 2007, 174 TAXMANN 440 (RAJ.) AND LAXMAN BHAI PATEL (ORDER OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DATED 22.07.2008 IN ITR NO. 41/1 997). 5.2.4. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF N.P. GARODIA (ORDER DATED 13.01.2009 OF HON'BLE P & H HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 8 08 OF ITA NO.2821/DEL/2011 6 2008) AND IN THE CASE OF BRIJ PAL SHARMA (ORDER DAT ED 17.02.2009 IN ITA NO. 685 OF 2008 OF HON'BLE P & H HIGH COURT) IT' WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE PROVIDE S IDENTITY AND DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE LENDERS/CREDITORS AND IS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THEM AND REQUESTS THE AO TO ISSUE SUMMONS U /S 131 FOR THEIR ATTENDANCE, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE AO TO I SSUE SUCH SUMMONS, FAILING WHICH THE ADDITION WOULD GET DELET ED. IT IS ALSO HELD IN CIT V. ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. 15 8 ITR 78 (SC) AND ANIS AHMED 297 ITR 441 (SC) THAT MERE NON- PRODUCTION OF THE LENDER/SHAREHOLDER CANNOT BE A GR OUND FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S 68. 5.2.5. SIMILARLY AS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT V. META CHEM INDUSTRIES (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) WHERE A CREDIT I S SHOWN TO HAVE COME FROM A PERSON OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEE, TH ERE IS NO FURTHER RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT IT HAS COME FROM ACCOUNTED SOURCE OF THE LENDER, AS LONG AS THE FACT THAT HE HAD MADE THE ADVANCE AND WAS CAPABLE OF MAKING THE ADVANCE ARE ESTABLISHED. IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN HASTIMAL (S) V. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273 THAT AFTER A LAPSE OF DECADE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PLACED UPON THE RACK AND CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN NOT MERELY THE ORIGIN AND SO URCE OF A CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION, BUT ALSO THE ORIGIN OF ORIGIN AND SOURCE OF THE SOURCE. 5.2.6 FURTHER, I FIND THAT THE APEX COURT IN CIT V LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. (2008) 216 CTR 195 HELD THAT THE E VEN IF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT C OMPANY IS FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDER, WHOSE IDENTITY IS P RODUCED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY, THE REVENUE CAN ALWAYS PROCE ED AGAINST SUCH SHAREHOLDERS AND IF NECESSARY REOPEN T HEIR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT. SIMILAR DECISION IS ALSO TAK EN IN THE CASE OF CIT V. STELLER INVESTMENT LTD. (1991) 192 I TR 287 (DEL.), (2000) 251 ITR 287 (SC), CIT V. SOPHIA FINA NCE LTD. 205 ITR 98 (DEL.)(FB), CIT V. DIVINE LEASING & FINA NCE LTD. (SLP NO. CC 375/2008 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 53/2005 OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI), CIT (KOLKATA) V. M/S SHIPRA R ETAILERS (P) LTD. (SLP NO. CC 451/2008 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO . 576/2004 OF THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA), CIT V. PON DY METAL & ROLLING MILLS (P) LTD. (SLP NO. CC 12860/2007 ARI SING OUT OF ITA NO. 788/2006 OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI) AND CIT V. GENERAL EXPORTS LTD. (SLP NO. 21349/2007 ARISING OU T OF ITA NO. 880/2006 OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI). FOLLOWING THE ITA NO.2821/DEL/2011 7 AFORESAID DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN CIT V. LOVE LY EXPORTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE RECENT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V CREATIVE WORLD TELIF ILMS LTD. (ORDER DATED 12.10.2009 IN ITA(L) NO. 2182 OF 2009) HAS HELD AS UNDER : 'THE QUESTION SOUGHT TO BE RAISED IN THE APPEAL WAS ALSO RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL WA S PLEASED TO FOLLOW THE JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. REPORTE D IN (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) WHEREIN THE APEX COURT OBSERVED THAT IF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS, WHOSE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THEN THE DEPARTMENT CAN ALWAYS PROCEED AGAINST THEM AND IF NECESSARY REOPEN THEIR INDIVIDU AL ASSESSMENTS. IN THE CASE IN HAND, IT IS NOT DISPUTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF NAME AND ADDR ESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, THEIR PANIGIR NUMBER AND HAD ALSO GIVEN THE CHEQUE NUMBER, NAME OF THE BANK. IT WAS EXPECTED ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O MAKE PROPER INVESTIGATION AND REACH THE SHAREHOLDER S. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOTHING EXCEPT ISSUING SUMMONS WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY RETURNED BACK WITH AN ENDORSEMENT 'NOT TENABLE'. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE FOUND OUT THEIR DET AILS THROUGH PAN CARD, BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS OR FROM THEI R BANKERS SO AS TO REACH THE SHAREHOLDERS SINCE ALL T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL DETAILS AND PARTICULARS WERE GIVE N BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNO T BE FAULTED. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOL VED IN THE APPEAL. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINNI WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. SIMILAR DECISION HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE CHHATTISGATH HIGH COURT IN ACIT V VENKATESHWAR ISPA T PVT. LTD. (2009) 319 ITR 393. 5.2.7. FURTHER, THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RELYIN G ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN LOVELY EXPORTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTS APPEALS IN L IMINE VIDE ITS RECENT ORDERS IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DWARKADHISH INVESTMENT ITA NO.2821/DEL/2011 8 PVT. LTD. AND DWARKADHISH CAPITAL PVT. LTD (ITA NOS . 911/2010 AND 913/2010 ORDER DATED 02.08.2010), CIT V. GREEN TECH TOWER BUILDERS PVT. LTD. (ITA NO. 1113/2010 OR DER DATED 12.08.2010) AND CIT V. ULTRATECH FINANCE & INVESTME NT LTD. (ITA NO. 1122/2010 ORDER DATED 12.08.2010). IN THE CASE OF DWARKADHISH INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. AND DWARAKDHISH CA PITAL PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT VIDE ITS COMMON ORDER DATED 02.08.2010 HAS INTER ALIA OBSERV ED AS UNDER : '7. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER WOULD APPLY AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD COVER THE FIE LD WITH REGARD TO INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 68 OF ACT, 1961. 8. IN ANY MATTER, THE ONUS OF PROOF IS NOT A STATIC ONE. THOUGH IN SECTION 68 PROCEEDINGS, THE INITIAL BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE ASSESSEE YET ONCE HE PR OVES THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS/SHARE APPLICANTS BY E ITHER FURNISHING THEIR PAN NUMBER OR INCOME TAX ASSESSMEN T NUMBER AND SHOWS THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION BY SHOWING MONEY IN HIS BOOKS EITHER BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR BY DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE, THEN THE O NUS OF PROOF WOULD SHIFT TO THE REVENUE. JUST BECAUSE T HE CREDITORS/SHARE APPLICANTS COULD NOT BE FOUND AT TH E ADDRESS GIVEN. IT WOULD NOT GIVE THE REVENUE THE RI GHT TO INVOKE SECTION 68. ONE MUST NOT LOSE SIGHT OF T HE FACT THAT IT IS THE REVENUE WHICH HAS ALL THE POWER AND WHEREWITHAL TO TRACE ANY PERSON. MOREOVER, IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE. ..... 10. WE ARE ALSO INFORMED THAT A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE AFORESAID DIVISION BENCH JUDGM ENT IN THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE P RESENT CASES AS THE MATTER IS FULLY COVERED BY THE JUDGMEN T OF THE SUPREME COURT IN LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA ) AS WELL AS THE DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT I N THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE ITSELF. ITA NO.2821/DEL/2011 9 11. CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRESENT APPEALS AMOUNT TO RELITIGATION. THE SUPREME COURT IN KK MODI VS. KN. MODI AND ORS., (1998) 3 SCC 573 HAS HELD, 'IT IS AN ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT AND CONTRARY TO JUSTICE AND PUBLIC POLICY FOR A PARTY TO RELITIGATE THE SAME ISSUE WHICH HAS ALREAD Y BEEN TRIED AND DECIDED EARLIER AGAINST HIM. THE REAGITAT ION MAYOR MAY NOT BE BARRED AS RES JUDICATA. BUT IF THE SAME ISSUE IS SOUGHT TO BE RE AGITATED, IT ALSO AMOUNTS TO AN ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT ..... ' 12. THOUGH WE WERE INITIALLY INCLINED TO IMPOSE COSTS YET WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ENDS OF JUSTIC E WOULD BE MET BY GIVING A DIRECTION TO THE REVENUE T O BE MORE CAREFUL BEFORE FILING APPEALS IN A ROUTINE MA NNER. IN OUR VIEW, APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED IN MATTERS WHERE EITHER NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES OR THE ISSUE OF LA W IS A SETTLED ONE. WE GIVE THIS DIRECTION BECAUSE THE JU DICIAL CAPITAL IN TERMS OF MANPOWER AND RESOURCES IS EXTRE MELY LIMITED. 13. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO COMMUNICATE COPIES OF THIS ORDER TO ALL THE CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX IN DELHI FOR NECESSARY ACTION. WITH THE AFORESAID DIRECTION, THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE DISMISSED IN LIM INE BUT WITHOUT ANY ORDER AS TO COSTS. ' 3. NOW, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BY TAKING THE FOLLOWIN G REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH READ AS UNDER :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE EYE S OF LAW IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.60,00,000/- IN THE LIGHT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS (216 CTR 195/SC) AND HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DWARKASHISH CAPITAL P .LTD. WHEN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE ABOVE CASE. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETIN G THE ITA NO.2821/DEL/2011 10 ADDITION WHEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT BEEN ABL E TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE CONCERNED PARTIE S WHO HAD MADE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY INSPITE OF THE SPECIFI C DIRECTIONS TO PRODUCE ALL THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE BEING A CL OSELY HELD COMPANY INSPITE OF PROVIDING MANY OPPORTUNITIES COU LD NOT PRODUCE ANY PARTY FOR CROSS OBJECTION. THEREFORE, T HE GENUINENESS AND THE IDENTITY OF ALL THE FIVE PARTIE S COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE ESTABLISHED. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SATISFIED THE ONUS OF PROVING THE IDENTITY OF ALL THE INVESTORS/SHARE APPLICANTS, OVE RLOOKING THE CLEAR FINDING OF THAT FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS RESTING ON IT BY NOT PRODUCIN G ALL THE FIVE INVESTORS/SHARE APPLICATIONS, SO THAT THEIR IDENTIT Y COULD BE ESTABLISHED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO BE ALLOWED TO ADD A NY FRESH GROUND OF APPEAL AND/OR DELETED OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.60,00,000/- MADE BY THE CIT(A) ON AC COUNT OF THE SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED O N THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING TH AT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES BY WAY O F SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES :- (I) CHANAKYA FINVEST PVT. LTD. RS.5,00,750 (II) ROYAL CREDITS P. LTD. RS.5,00,750 ITA NO.2821/DEL/2011 11 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF THE A SSESSMENT NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATI ON MONEY FROM FOLLOWING COMPANIES AS WELL:- (I) TEAM PLUS SECURITIES LTD. RS. 5,00,000 (II) MPN FINCAP PVT. LTD. RS.11,50,000 (III) NEELKANT SHARES P. LTD. RS. 3,50,000 (IV) ASHIAN NEEDLES P. LTD. RS.10,00,000 (V) PARS FINCAP P. LTD. RS.10,00,000 (V) KVF SECURITIES P. LTD. RS.10,00,000 7. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY IT. 8. IN RESPONSE THERETO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED D ETAILS IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION FORM, PAN CARD DETAILS, AFFIDA VITS OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES, COPY OF INCOME TAX RETUR N, CONFIRMATION, BANK STATEMENT, COPY OF FORM 18, COPY OF FORM 32 OF COMP ANIES, COPY OF BALANCE SHEET OF SHAREHOLDERS, CERTIFICATE OF INCOR PORATION AND ALSO COPY OF MASTER DATA AS AVAILABLE ON THE SITE OF MINISTRY CORPORATE AFFAIRS, ETC. THE AO DID NOT GET SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION O F THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.60 LACS AS UNEXPLAINE D CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE CA RRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DELETED THE A DDITION BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FILED ALL THE NECESSARY D ETAILS WHICH INCLUDE COPIES OF SHARE APPLICATION FORM, COPIES OF BANK ST ATEMENTS, COPIES OF ITA NO.2821/DEL/2011 12 INCOME TAX RETURNS COPIES OF PAN CARDS, BALANCE SHE ET, COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND MEMORANDUM OF ARTI CLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANIES. THE CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE STAT US OF THESE COMPANIES IS ACTIVE ON THE ROC WEBSITE. THE CIT(A) ALSO NO TED THAT THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION WAS NOT PROVIDED T O THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGATION OF THE INVESTIGATION WING . THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND BY RELYING UPON THE VA RIOUS JUDGMENTS HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AND DELETED T HE ADDITION. 10. BEFORE US, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD. DR THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT THERE WAS INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING AN D ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANIES WHO HAVE MADE INVESTMENTS IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 11. AGAINST THIS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS. NO INFIRMITY HAS BEEN P OINTED OUT EXCEPT MAKING CASUAL OBSERVATION THAT THE BALANCES IN THEI R BANK ACCOUNTS ARE VERY LOW. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE AO HAS NOT EVEN I NVESTIGATED THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES. HE COULD HAVE EASILY VERIFIED THE SOURCE OF CREDIT IN THE BA NK ACCOUNTS OF THESE COMPANIES. NO EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO VERIFY THE STATUS OF THESE COMPANIES IN THE INCOME TAX RECORD DESPITE THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTING COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT ORD ERS IN SOME CASES. ITA NO.2821/DEL/2011 13 12. AS REGARDS THE EXISTENCE OF THESE COMPANIES IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE DIRECTORS OF THESE COMPANIES AND THESE HAVE BEEN DULY SERVED AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESS MENT ORDER WHERE THE ONLY ALLEGATION IS THAT NONE OF THE DIRECTORS ATTEN DED IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE AO. THE AO HAVING ISSUED THE SUMMONS IT WAS FOR HIM TO TAKE THE SAME TO THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION. NO FIELD ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE AO SO AS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THESE COMP ANIES ARE NOT IN EXISTENCE. AS AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY H AS PROVIDED ALL THE BEST POSSIBLE EVIDENCES. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE A O ARE VERY CASUAL AND IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HE HAS COMPLETED THE ASSE SSMENT WITH A PRECONCEIVED NOTION BY INDULGING INTO SURMISES AND CONJECTURE. THE AO BEING AN ADJUDICATING OFFICER IS SUPPOSED TO EXAMIN E ALL THE MATERIALS AND CARRY OUT THE INVESTIGATION TO THE LOGICAL END. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE HAS NOT EVEN LOOKED AT THE STATEMENT OF THE PERSON ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ALLEG ATION IS BEING LEVIED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. DESPITE THE ASSESSEE FILING VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING ITS CONTENTION IN RESPECT OF E ACH OF THE SHAREHOLDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE NO EFFORT TO EXAMINE THESE DOCUMENTS AND MADE EVEN CROSS VERIFICATION FROM THE CONCERNED ASS ESSING OFFICER OF THESE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES. HE HAS MADE SWEEPING REMARKS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON ITS OWN. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ITA NO.2821/DEL/2011 14 EXAMINED ALL THESE ISSUES AND WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELE TING THE ABOVE SAID ADDITION. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ONLY ISSUE HERE IS THE ADDITION OF RS.60 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEX PLAINED CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. ON GOING T HROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE NOTICE THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REL EVANT DETAILS WHICH IT COULD HAVE FILED IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION OF HA VING RECEIVED THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM EACH OF THESE SHAREHOLDER CO MPANIES. 14. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE DIRECTORS OF THESE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES. IN RESPONSE THERE TO, THE D IRECTORS HAVE NOT ATTENDED. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY FURTHER INQUIRY FOR NON-ATTENDANCE OF THE PERSONS. NON-ATTENDANCE ON I SSUING SUMMONS ITSELF, CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR REJECTING ALL THE RE LEVANT DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SUMMONS ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED BACK AS UNSERVED. T HEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THESE COMPANIES WERE NOT IN EXISTENCE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. THE DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES SHOW THAT THESE COMPANIES WERE ACTIVE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED ANY OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS SUBMITTE D BY ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DISCHARGING ONUS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REFERRED NOR DISCUSSED AB OUT THE SO-CALLED ALLEGED STATEMENT OF ENTRY PROVIDERS AGAINST THE AS SESSEE COMPANY. IT IS ITA NO.2821/DEL/2011 15 ALSO NOT KNOWN WHETHER ASSESSEES NAME FIGURED IN T HAT STATEMENT. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED WITHOU T EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT H AS BEEN MADE THE BASIS OF ADDITION WITHOUT ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN THIS REGARD. EVEN THE PROCESS OF EXAMINATION OF THE DIRECTORS BY ISSU E OF SUMMONS HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN TO THE LOGICAL END AS AFTER THE FAILURE OF THE DIRECTORS TO ATTEND IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THEM NO FURTHE R STEPS WERE TAKEN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE DONE CROSS VERIFIC ATION ABOUT THE STATUS OF THESE COMPANIES WITH THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSING OF FICER OF THESE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES. 15. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS FAIR FINVEST LTD ITA NO. 232/2012 DATED 22- 11-2012, THE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HE LD AS UNDER:- 6. THIS COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E PARTIES. IN THIS CASE THE DISCUSSION BY THE CIT(APP EALS) WOULD REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DOCUMENTS INCLUDING CERTIFIED COPIES ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANI ES IN RELATION TO THE SHARE APPLICATION, AFFIDAVITS OF TH E DIRECTORS, FORM 2 FILED WITH THE ROC BY SUCH APPLICANTS CONFIR MATIONS BY THE APPLICANT FOR COMPANYS SHARES, CERTIFICATES BY AUDITORS ETC. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHOSE TO BASE HIMSELF MERELY ON THE GENERAL INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN FROM TH E READING OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT AND THE STATEMENT OF MR . MAHESH GARG. TO ELEVATE THE INFERENCE WHICH CAN BE DRAWN O N THE BASIS OF READING OF SUCH MATERIAL INTO JUDICIAL CON CLUSIONS WOULD BE IMPROPER, MORE SO WHEN THE ASSESSEE PRODUC ED MATERIAL. THE LEAST THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGH T TO HAVE DONE WAS TO ENQUIRE INTO THE MATTER BY, IF NECESSAR Y, INVOKING HIS POWERS UNDER SECTION 131 SUMMONING THE SHARE ITA NO.2821/DEL/2011 16 APPLICANTS OR DIRECTORS. NO EFFORT WAS MADE IN THAT REGARD. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH FINDING THAT THE MATERIAL D ISCLOSED WAS UNTRUSTWORTHY OR LACKED CREDIBILITY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MERELY CONCLUDED ON THE BASIS OF ENQUIRY REPORT, WH ICH COLLECTED CERTAIN FACTS AND THE STATEMENTS OF MR. M AHESH GARG THAT THE INCOME SOUGHT TO BE ADDED FELL WITHIN THE DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 68. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE FIND ING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS CASE ACCORDS WITH THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN LOVELY EXPORTS (SUPRA). 8. THE DECISION IN THIS CASE IS BASED ON THE PECULIAR FACTS WHICH A TTRACT THE RATIO OF LOVELY EXPORTS (SUPRA). WHERE THE ASSESSEE ADDUCES EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONIES , IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE IT AND REJECT I T ON TENABLE GROUNDS. IN CASE HE WISHES TO RELY ON THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES, SOME MEANINGFUL ENQUIRY OUGHT TO BE CONDUCTED BY HIM TO ESTABLISH A LINK BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE ALLEGED HAWALAOPERATORS; SUCH A LINK WAS SH OWN TO BE PRESENT IN THE CASE OF NOVA PROMOTERS &FINLEASE (P) LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE. WE ARE THEREFOR E NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD TO CONVEY THAT IN ALL CASES OF SHARE CAP ITAL ADDED UNDER SECTION 68, THE RATIO OF LOVELY EXPORTS (SUPR A) IS ATTRACTED, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACTS, EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. THE APPEAL IS A CCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 16. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS NOTED ABOVE, THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY VALID MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO D ISCREDIT THE EVIDENCES AND THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ONLY EVIDENCE WHICH HAS BEEN REFERRED BY THE AO IS STATEMENT OF T HIRD PARTIES RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING. ADMITTEDLY THESE STATEM ENTS WERE NOT RECORDED BY THE AO BUT WERE RECORDED BY THE INVESTI GATION WING AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NOT EVEN REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT ITA NO.2821/DEL/2011 17 PORTION OF SUCH STATEMENT SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE CO LLUSIVE ARRANGEMENT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD WITH THESE PERSONS. 17. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 16 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XVIII, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT