Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5382 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
16-05-2019
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
Not Allotted
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
24-04-2017
Judgement Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.2924/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) D CIT - 9 (3)( 2 ) ROOM NO.418, 4 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. M/S. GLADIOLUS PROPERTY & INV . P VT. LTD. C-601, VRINDAVAN BEHIND DINDOSHI BUS DEPOT GOKULDHAM, MALAD (E) MUMBAI-400 097. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AADCG-0676-N ( ! /APPELLANT ) : ( '#! / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : SHRI B.B. RAJENDRA PRASAD-LD. CIT DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JITENDRA JAIN-LD.AR / DATE OF HEARING : 07/03/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/05/2019 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2009-10 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-20, MUMBAI, [CIT(A)], APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-20/ACIT-12(2)(2)/IT-335/2015-16 DATED 18/0/2017 ON FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL: - 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,25,0 0,000/- MADE U/S.68 OF THE ACT, BY NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARES INV ESTORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS? THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS ABOVE BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 2 2.1 THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12(2)(2) [AO] U/S 143(3 ) READ WITH SECTION 147 ON 30/03/2015 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS SADDLED WITH ADDITION OF RS.13.25 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 . THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2.38 CRORES ON 29/09/2009 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). THE ADDI TION U/S 68 AS MADE BY LD. AO IS THE SOLE SUBJECT MATTER OF PRESEN T APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT CORPORATE ASSESSEE WAS STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN INVESTMENT AND TRADING IN SHARES AND SECURITIES. 2.2 THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS GOT TRIGGERED PURS UANT TO RECEIPT OF CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM ADDITIONAL CIT-RANGE 9(1), MUMBAI VIDE LETTER DATED 28/03/2014 THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SHARE P REMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.12.58 CRORES DURING THE IMPUGNED AY. ON THE B ASIS OF THE SAME, LD. AO FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE INCOME TO THAT EX TENT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED T O THE ASSESSEE ON 30/03/2014 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON ASSESSEE. IN RE SPONSE, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AS FILED ON 29/09/2009 AND SOUGHT REASONS FOR REOPENING WHICH WERE DULY SUPPLI ED. THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING REOPENING WERE D ULY DISPOSED-OFF BY WAY OF SPEAKING ORDER ON 05/02/2015. ACCORDINGLY, T HE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FULFILMENT OF PRIMARY I NGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68. 2.3 DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE ISSUED 6,62,500 EQUITY SHARES OF FACE VALUE OF RS.1 0/- EACH TO 20 SHARE APPLICANTS AT PREMIUM OF RS.190/- PER SHARE. ACCORD INGLY, THE AMOUNT, SO RECEIVED, ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL & SHARE PREMIUM AGGREGATED 3 TO RS.66.25 LACS AND RS.1258.75 LACS RESPECTIVELY. THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF SHARE ALLOTMENT INCLUDING THE DETAILS OF SHARE ALLOTTEES HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXTRACTED AT PARA 5.1 OF THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AND NATURE AND SO URCE OF THE SUMS SO RECEIVED BY IT. 2.4 THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE AFORESAID TRANSACTION S BY SUBMITTING VARIOUS DETAILS LIKE NAME, ADDRESS, PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER [PAN] OF THE INVESTORS ALONG WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE FINANC IALS, SHARE APPLICATION FORMS, BANK STATEMENTS, COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTION AU THORIZING THE ISSUE OF SHARES ETC. A VALUATION REPORT IN JUSTIFICATION OF SHARE PREMIUM WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. 2.5 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TO CONFIRM THE STATED TRANSACTIONS, NOTICES U/S 133(6) WERE ISSUED BY LD. AO ON SAMPLE BASIS TO FOLLOWING THREE SHARE ALLOTTEES: - I) JANKI TEXTILES & INDUSTRIES LTD. II) SANATAN VINIMAY PVT. LTD. III) MADHU KHETAN HOWEVER, ALL THE THREE NOTICES WERE RETURNED BACK B Y POSTAL AUTHORITIES WHICH LED THE LD. DO BELIEVE THAT THE IDENTITY OF A LL THE SHARE APPLICANTS COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. FURTHER, AFTER PERUSING T HE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, LD.AO FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE GENU INENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESS EE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW-CAUSED ON 10/03/2015 ASKING HIM T O EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THESE PARTIES SHOULD NOT BE TAXED AS ITS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE DEFEN DED THE TRANSACTIONS ON THE STRENGTH OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC ES AND VARIOUS DETAILS SUBMITTED BY HIM. 4 2.6 THE LD. AO, AT PARA 7 OF THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER , FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTORS COULD NO T BE ESTABLISHED SINCE NOTICES U/S 133(6) REMAINED UNSERVED TO THE THREE P ARTIES. AT THE SAME TIME, AN OBSERVATION HAS BEEN MADE BY LD. AO THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED NEW ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES. THE LD. AO T ERMED THE ASSESSEES REPLIES AS MERE AFTERTHOUGHT AIMED AT CA MOUFLAGING NON- GENUINE TRANSACTIONS, FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND DEVOI D OF ANY MERITS. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSE E WITH RESPECT TO PARTY LISTED AT SERIAL NO. 1 ABOVE WAS DIFFERENT IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NO INFORMATION OF THE AFORESAID ENTITY WAS AVAI LABLE ON THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS [MCA] WEBSITE WHICH LED THE LD. A O TO FORM A BELIEF THAT THE PARTY DID NOT EXIST AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY OF NONE OF THE PARTIES, IN THE OPINION OF LD. AO, COULD BE RELIED UPON. 2.7 PROCEEDING FURTHER, LD. AO OPINED THAT CREDITWO RTHINESS OF THE PARTIES COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE DETAILS OF RESPECTIVE SHAREHOLDERS / DIRECTORS. THE EXAMINATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS REVEALS THAT MOST OF THE ENTIT IES WERE LOSS MAKING ENTITIES AND DID NOT HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT FIXED ASS ETS OR EMPLOYEES. THE DETAILS OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WERE NOT AVAILABLE A ND THE TURNOVER WAS MEAGRE. AT THE SAME TIME, AN OBSERVATION HAS BEEN M ADE IN PARA 8.1 THAT THESE ENTITIES HAD SUBSTANTIAL MONEY IN SECURITIES PREMIUM ACCOUNT / OTHER LIABILITIES WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF FUNDS TO MAKE FURTHER INVESTMENTS IN OTHER ENTITIES INCLUDING INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THESE ENTITIES WERE TERMS AS MERELY ROUT ING ENTITIES AND THERE WAS NO SEMBLANCE OF ANY GENUINE BUSINESS ACTIVITY A ND FURTHER THE 5 FACADE OF THE COMPANY WAS CREATED SO AS TO IMPART A GENUINE CHARACTER TO THE SHAM TRANSACTIONS. 2.8 THE LD. ALSO DOUBTED THE HIGH SHARE PREMIUM IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION OF ASSESS EE COMPANY AND IT HAD POOR EARNING PER SHARE [EPS] AND HAD NOT DECLARED ANY DIVIDEND. 2.9 FINALLY, MAKING AN OBSERVATION THAT BANK STATEM ENTS ALONE WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACT IONS, THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.13.25 CRORES WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS U NEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68. 3.1 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE AGITATED THE REASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS ON LEGAL GROUNDS AS WELL AS QUANTUM ADDITIONS ON ME RITS WITH PARTIAL SUCCESS BEFORE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE I MPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/01/2017 WHEREIN LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, INTER-ALIA, RELYING UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN ACIT VS. RAKESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT LTD. [291 ITR 500] UPHELD THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PROCEEDED TO EXAMINE ASSESSEES CLA IM ON MERITS. 3.2 BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE ASSERTED THAT T HE PRIMARY INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 WERE FULFILLED BY THE ASS ESSEE ON THE STRENGTH OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND THEREFORE, ADDITIONS W ERE NOT JUSTIFIED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED EACH DETAIL A S CALLED FOR BY LD. AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH INTER-ALIA INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: - I) DETAILS OF INVESTORS WITH THEIR NAME, PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. (PAN), NUMBER OF SHARES SUBSCRIBED, FACE VALUE AND PREMIUM RECEIV ED, CHEQUE NUMBER ISSUED BY THE INVESTOR AND ACCOUNT IN WHICH CONSIDE RATION HAS BEEN CREDITED. II) VALUATION REPORT III) RELEVANT EXTRACT OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPE LLANT AND BANK BOOK IV) BOARD RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE APPELLANT FOR IS SUE OF SHARES V) FORM 2 (RETURN OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARE) FILED WITH REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES 6 VI) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN FILED VII) AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDE D 31.03.2009 VIII) EQUITY SHARE APPLICATION FORM IX) SHARE CERTIFICATES ISSUED X) RELEVANT EXTRACT OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE INVEST OR THE ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE MERELY BECAUSE THE THREE NOTICES SENT U/S 133(6) WE RE RETURNED BACK UNSERVED WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE PLACED ON RECORD SUFF ICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTORS, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTORS AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTIONS AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS WERE NOT JUSTIFIED. RE LIANCE WAS PLACED ON CATENA OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THE DEC ISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. [319 ITR 5] & HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CIT VS. GAGANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD. [80 TAXMANN.COM 272] IN SUPPORT OF VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS. 3.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AN D MATERIAL ON RECORD, LD. CIT(A) CONCURRED WITH ASSESSEES STAND / SUBMISSIONS AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ONS: - 6.8 ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS ON RECORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM OF RS.13,25,00,000/- HAS COME FROM DIFFEREN T SHAREHOLDERS. IT IS NOTED THAT THESE SHAREHOLDERS ARE EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS AND HA D CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAD CONTRIBUTED TO THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY. THE NEXT ASPECT IS THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF PA N CARD, BANK STATEMENT, BALANCE SHEET AND P&L ACCOUNT, SHARE APPLICATION FORM, ETC. OF SHAREHOLDERS. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE INVESTING SHAREHOLDERS HAD RECORDED THE INVESTMENTS IN APPELLANT COMPANY IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. THUS, THE SHAREHOLDERS HAD DEMONSTRATED THESE BALAN CES IN THEIR BALANCE SHEETS IN THE SHAPE OF INVESTMENT AS WELL AS LOAN AND ADVANCES. THE NEXT I SSUE IS ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS PR ODUCED THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT. THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND SHARE PREM IUM HAD BEEN ISSUED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THERE IS NO CASH TRANSACTION WHICH COULD COMPEL ONESELF TO ASSUME THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE ISSUE THAT THE SHARES WERE ISSUED TO SHAREHOLDERS AT HIGH PREMIUM AND THE SUBSCRIBING SHAREHOLDERS HAD MEAGER INCOME DURING T HE YEAR HENCE THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WAS TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT. T HE ONUS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS TO SATISFY THE DEPARTMENT 7 ABOUT THE TRUE IDENTITY OF AN INVESTOR, ITS CREDITW ORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF A TRANSACTION WAS EXPLAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. LOVELY EX PORTS (P) LTD., 216 CTR 295. WHILST, THE A.O. ACTED LEGITIMATELY IN ENQUIRI NG INTO THE MATTER, THE INFERENCES DRAWN BY HIM WERE NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CHARGED A HIGHER PREMIUM OR NOT, S HOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ENQUIRY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. INSTEA D, THE ISSUE HERE WAS WHETHER THE AMOUNT INVESTED BY THE SHARE APPLICANTS WAS FROM LEGITIMATE SOURCES. THE OBJECTIVE OF SECTION 68 IS TO AVOID INCLUSION OF AMOUNTS WHICH A RE SUSPECT. THEREFORE, THE EMPHASIS IS ON GENUINENESS OF ALL THE THREE ASPECTS, IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE T RANSACTION. WHAT IS PECULIAR IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS BEING C OMPLETED THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE MUCH INVESTIGATION ABOUT THESE IN VESTOR SHAREHOLDERS WHICH WOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTORS, THE GENU INENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. IT HA S BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THESE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. WERE DULY FILLED THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE A.O. BUT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SHARE APPLICANTS BEFORE THE A .O. WHILE OBSERVING SO, THE RATIO OF FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WAS DULY NOTED AT PARA 6.9 TO 6.11 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER: - NO. TITLE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY CITATION 1. OASIS HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. VS. CIT HONBLE DELH I HIGH COURT 2011 333 ITR 119 2. CIT VS. CREATIVE WORLD TELEFILMS LTD. HONBLE BO MBAY HIGH COURT 2011 333 ITR 100 3. CIT VS. P.MOHANKALA HONBLE SUPREME COURT 2007 2 91 ITR 278 4. CIT VS STELLAR INVESTMENT LTD. HONBLE DELHI HIG H COURT 1991 192 ITR 287 5. CIT VS GANGESHWARI METAL PVT. LTD HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT 2014 361 ITR 10 FINALLY, THE MATTER ON MERITS, WAS CONCLUDED IN ASS ESSEES FAVOR BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 6.12 IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL POSITION EMANATING FROM L EGAL PRECEDENTS AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, IN THE CA SE OF GANGESHWARI METAL P. LTD. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IT IS NOTED THAT WHEN REQUISITE DOC UMENTS SUCH AS PAN, BANK ACCOUNTS, BALANCE SHEET ETC. WERE AVAILABLE WITH TH E A.O., TO ESTABLISH THAT NO CASH TRANSACTIONS WERE INVOLVED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE INVESTING COMPANY THEN WITHOUT FURTHER PROBE TO PROVE CONTRARY THE ADDITION U/S 68 IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE MADE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION ON THE F ACTS OF THE CASE AND HAVING REGARD TO THE DECISIONS OF COURTS AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AS NOTED ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM OF RS. 13,25,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN APPEAL AND IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.1 THE LD. CIT-DR VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED THE STAND O F FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY SUBMITTING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE PRIMARY 8 ONUS TO DEMONSTRATE FULFILLMENT OF PRIMARY INGREDIE NTS OF SECTION 68 AND THEREFORE, THE STAND OF LD. AO DESERVES TO BE RESTO RED. A CHART HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US WITH RESPECT TO SHARE APPLICANTS T O DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TURNOVER OF THESE ENTITIES WAS LOW AND MOST OF THE ENTITIES WERE EITHER LOSS MAKING ENTITIES OR SHOWING MEAGRE INCOME AND T HEREFORE, DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO MAKE THE STATED I NVESTMENTS. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE RECENT DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN PR.CIT VS. NRA IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD. [412 ITR 161] & VARIOUS OTHER JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TO SUPPORT TH E SAME, WHICH COULD BE TABULATED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - NO. C A SE LAW JUDICIAL AUTHORI TY CITATION 1. KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGG P LTD VS DCIT HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT 90 TAXMANN.COM 56 2018 [SLP DISMISSED 96 TAXMANN.COM 255] 2. MAJOR METALS LTD. VS UOI HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT 19 TAXMANN.COM 176 2012 3. CIT VS. NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE (P) LTD. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT 18 TAXMANN.COM 217 2012 4. CIT VS. FROSTAIR (P.) LTD. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT 26 TAXMANN.COM 11 2012 5. CIT VS. NIPUN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (P.) LTD. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT [2013] 350 ITR 407 6. CIT VS. PRECISION FINANCE (P.) LTD. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA 208 ITR 465 1995 7. PR.CIT VS. NDR PROMOTERS PVT.LTD. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT ITA NO.49 OF 2018 DATED 17/01/2019 8. ADVANCE POWERINFRA TECH LTD. VS. DCIT ITAT, KOLKATA ITA NO.605/KOL/2015 DATED 23/08/2017 9. ANGEL PIPES & TUBES (P.) LTD. VS. ITO ITAT, MUMBAI 153 ITD 520 13/08/2014 4.2 PER CONTRA, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR A SSESSEE, DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DOCUMENTS P LACED IN THE PAPER- BOOK INCLUDING SUBMISSIONS MADE DURING ASSESSMENT / APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED PLETHORA OF DOCUMENTS TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF SHARE APPLIC ANTS, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S CARRIED OUT BY THE 9 ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER WOULD NO T WARRANT ANY INTERFERENCE. A CHART HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US WIT H RESPECT TO SHARE APPLICANTS TO SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED NAME, ADDRESSES, PAN OF THE INVESTORS, INCOME TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, A UDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, COPIES OF SHARE APPLICATION FORM, COPIE S OF SHARE CERTIFICATES, BANK STATEMENTS OF THE INVESTORS AND CONFIRMATION O F ACCOUNTS. OUR ATTENTION HAS FURTHER BEEN DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED THE NEW ADDRESSES OF THE 3 SHARE ALLOTTEES TO THE LD. AO BUT NO SUMMONS WAS ISSUED TO THESE PARTIES AT THE NEW A DDRESS AND NO FURTHER INQUIRY / INVESTIGATION WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN MADE TO BRING THE MATTER TO LOGICAL CONCLUSION. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBM ITTED THAT SINCE ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE ALLOTTED PERMANENT ACCOUNT NU MBER BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE RETURN OF INCOME AS W ELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ALL THE ALLOTTEES WAS PLACED ON RECOR D, THERE COULD BE NO DOUBT AS TO IDENTITY OF THE INVESTORS. REGARDING CR EDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTORS, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IT IS THE CAT EGORICAL FINDING OF LD. AO HIMSELF THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE SOURCED BY THE IN VESTORS OUT OF THEIR UNSECURED LOANS / RESERVES / OTHER LIABILITIES. SIM ILARLY, OTHER ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED TO SUPPORT THE FACT THAT THE TRA NSACTIONS WERE GENUINE AND NOTHING ON RECORD SUGGEST THAT UNACCOUN TED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE FLOWED BACK, IN ANY MANNER, IN THE SHAPE O F SHARE CAPITAL / PREMIUM. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE ISS UE OF SHARE PREMIUM WAS A MATTER BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND INVESTEE COMP ANY AND THERE WAS NO ILLEGALITY IN COMMANDING HIGHER SHARE PREMIU M ON SHARES. ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO SUBMIT THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VIIB) WERE APPLICABLE ONLY FROM AY 2013-14 AN D THE SAME WERE NOT RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, A TTENTION HAS BEEN 10 DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT CASE LAWS BEING RELIED UPON BY LD. CIT-DR WERE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. 4.3 RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TO SUPPORT THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS: - NO. CA SE LAW JUDICIAL AUTHORITY CITATION 1. PR.CIT VS. M/S. PARADISE INLAND SHIPPING PVT.LTD. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO.66 OF 2016 DATED 10/04/2017 2. ORIENT TRADING CO. LTD. VS. CIT HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (1963) 49 ITR 0723 3. PR. CIT & ORS. VS. CHAIN HOUSE INTERNATIONAL (P.) LTD. & ORS. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (2018) 408 ITR 0561 4. SUNSHINE METALS & ALLOYS INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ITAT MUMBAI ITA NO.3212/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) DATED 12/10/2018 5. DCIT VS. PIRAMAL REALTY PVT.LTD. ITAT MUMBAI ITA NO.2317/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) DATED 16/11/2018 5.1 WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS A ND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS / DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER-BOOK & JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BEFORE US. THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT EMERGES FROM THE RECORD ARE TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF CERTAIN SHARE CAPITAL & SHARE PREMIUM FROM AS MANY AS 20 INVESTORS DURING THE IMPUGNED AY. THE SHARES WERE S TATED TO BE ISSUED AT A PREMIUM OF 190/- PER SHARE. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAID TRAN SACTIONS AT THE THRESHOLD OF SECTION 68. VARIOUS DETAILS AND DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCES WERE CALLED FROM THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE IDEN TITY OF THE INVESTORS, PROVE THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND DEMONSTRATE GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE, IN SUPPORT OF THE TRANS ACTIONS, PLACED ON RECORD PLETHORA OF DOCUMENTS DURING ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ENUMERATED BY US AT PARA 3.2 ABOVE. THESE 11 DOCUMENTS, INTER-ALIA, INCLUDE DETAILS OF THE INVESTORS, THEIR RESPECTIVE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS, COPIES OF INCOME TAX RET URNS, BANK STATEMENTS OF THE INVESTORS & ASSESSEE EVIDENCING T HE AFORESAID PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND AUDITED FINANC IAL STATEMENTS OF THE INVESTORS WHICH WOULD DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSE SSEE DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS AS CASTED UPON HIM UNDER THE RIGORS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68. NOTHING ON RECORD WOULD SUGGEST THAT TH E ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUPPLY ANY DETAILS CALLED FOR BY LD. AO DURING ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, LD. AO CHOSE TO INVESTIGATE THE TRANSACTIO NS BY ISSUING NOTICES U/S 133(6) ON SAMPLE BASIS TO 3 INVESTORS ONLY. WHE N THESE NOTICES WERE RETURNED BACK, THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED NEW ADDRESSES OF THESE 3 INVESTORS TO LD. AO. HOWEVER, THE SAME WERE COMPLET ELY DISREGARDED AND TERMED AS MERE AFTER THOUGHT AIMED AT CAMOUFLAG ING NON-GENUINE TRANSACTIONS, FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. NO FURTHER INQUIRIES / INVESTIGATIONS ETC. WAS CARRIED OUT AGA INST THESE 3 ENTITIES WHEREAS NO INQUIRY, AT ALL, WAS MADE IN REST OF THE CASES. IT IS IMPORTANT TO OBSERVE THAT THE MONEYS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 WHEREAS THE NOTICES WERE SENT IN THE Y EAR 2014-15 I.E. AFTER A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS EVERY POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE OF OFFICE ADDRESS BY THE INVESTORS. THEREFOR E, THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY LD. AO ON HALF-BAKED INVESTIGATION, IN OUR OPINION, WERE INCOMPREHENSIBLE. ONCE PRIMARY ONUS WAS DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE TO NEG ATE THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS BY BRINGING ON RECORD COGENT MATERIAL T O ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEES UNACCOUNTED MONEY WAS ROUTED BACK INTO T HE ACCOUNTS BY WAY OF SHARE CAPITAL / SHARE PREMIUM. NOTHING ON RE CORD SUGGEST THAT ANY SUCH MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY LD. AO. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT NO 12 ADDITIONS COULD BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSP ICION, CONJECTURES OR SURMISES. THEREFORE, THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, W OULD NOT INSPIRE US TO CONFIRM THE ADDITIONS AS MADE BY LD.AO U/S 68. 5.2 THIS VIEW OF OURS IS IN LINE WITH THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN ORIENT TRADING CO. LTD. 49 ITR 723 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT WHERE AN ENTRY STANDS IN THE NAME OF THE THIRD PARTY, THE ASSESSEE SATISFIES THE INCOME-TAX OFFICE R AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE THIRD PARTY AND ALSO SUPPLIES SUCH OTHER EVIDEN CE WHICH WILL SHOW, PRIMA FACIE, THAT THE ENTRY IS NOT FICTITIOUS THE I NITIAL BURDEN WHICH LIES ON HIM CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED BY HIM. IT WILL NOT, THEREAFTER, BE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN FURTHER HOW OR IN WH AT CIRCUMSTANCES THE THIRD PARTY OBTAINED MONEY AND HOW OR WHY HE CAME T O MAKE A DEPOSIT OF THE SAME WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE BURDEN WILL THEN SHIFT ON TO THE DEPARTMENT TO SHOW WHY THE ASSESSEE'S CASE CANNOT B E ACCEPTED AND WHY IT MUST BE HELD THAT THE ENTRY, THOUGH PURPORTI NG TO BE IN THE NAME OF A THIRD PARTY, STILL REPRESENTS THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE FROM A SUPPRESSED SOURCE. IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT SUCH A CON CLUSION, HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO BE IN POSSESSION OF SUFFICIENT AN D ADEQUATE MATERIAL. WE FIND ABSENCE OF SUCH MATERIAL IN THE PRESENT CAS E. 5.3 THE AFORESAID FACTUAL MATRIX WOULD DISTINGUISH THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN PCIT VS. NRA IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD. [SUPRA] AS RELIED UPON BY LD. CIT-DR. UPON PERUSAL OF THE C ITED JUDGMENT, WE NOTE CERTAIN DISTINGUISHING FEATURES V IS--VIS FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE PRESENT CASE. UPON PERUSAL OF PARA 3.7 & 3.8 OF THE SAID JUDGEMENT, IT IS NOTED THAT LD. AO HAD ISSUED SUMMO NS TO AS MANY AS 19 INVESTOR ENTITIES BUT NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES. THE SUBMISSIONS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH DA K ONLY WHICH 13 CREATED A DOUBT ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR COMPANY. FURTHER, LD. AO INDEPENDENTLY GOT FIELD INQUIRIES CONDUCTED AT T HE LOCATION OF INVESTOR COMPANIES, THE RESULT OF WHICH HAS BEEN TABULATED U NDER THE SAID PARA. NOTICES WERE SERVED ON FEW ENTITIES BUT THE SAME WE RE NOT REPLIED TO. IN FEW CASES, THE NOTICES WERE RETURNED BACK. SUBMISSI ONS WERE RECEIVED IN FEW CASES THROUGH DAK WHEREIN THE COMPANY ONLY P ROVIDED THE MODE OF INVESTMENTS WITHOUT SUPPLYING ANY REASON TO PAY HUGE PREMIUM. ANOTHER STRIKING FEATURE WAS THAT MOST OF THE INVES TORS HAD REFLECTED MEAGRE INCOME DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE. THE TWO COMPANIES IN MUMBAI AS WELL AS GUWAHATI WERE FOUND TO BE NON- EXISTENT. WITH RESPECT TO KOLKATA COMPANIES, THE RE SPONSE CAME THROUGH DAK ONLY AND NOBODY APPEARED. FURTHER, THE BANK STATEMENTS WERE NOT PRODUCED IN MOST OF THE CASES TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR MAKING HUGE INVESTMENTS. THE TOTALITY OF FACTUA L MATRIX WOULD REVEAL THAT EXTENSIVE INQUIRIES WERE MADE BY LD. AO TO BRI NG THE MATTER TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSION. HOWEVER, THE SAME ARE NOT THE F ACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE AS NOTED BY US IN PARA 5.1 ABOVE. THEREFORE, THE STATED CASE OF HONBLE APEX COURT, IN OUR RESPECTFUL SUBMISSION, D O NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND AND HENCE DISTINGUISHABLE . 5.4 ANOTHER CASE LAW OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, AS RELIED UPON BY LD. CIT-DR, RENDERED IN KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGG. P LTD VS DCIT [SUPRA] WAS RENDERED IN A SITUATION WHEREIN THE CREDITWORT HINESS OF THE INVESTOR AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SUMMONS WAS RETURNED BACK AND THE TRANSACTIONS WERE BETWEEN RELATED PARTIES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOTHING ON RECORD SUGGEST THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE RELATED PART IES. 14 5.5 SIMILAR, THE CASE-LAW OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT IN MAJOR METALS LTD. VS. UOI [SUPRA] DEALS WITH A SITUATION WHEREIN IT WAS FOUND THAT THE INVESTOR COMPANY HAD NO FINANCIAL STANDING TO ADVANCE HUGE SUMS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS TH E FINDING OF LD. AO THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT BY INVESTORS WAS THEIR RES PECTIVE UNSECURED LOANS / RESERVES / OTHER LIABILITIES. 5.6 IN THE CASE LAW OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT CIT VS. NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE (P) LTD. [SUPRA] , THE MATERIAL BEFORE LD. AO ESTABLISHED LINK BETWEEN THE ENTRY PROVIDERS AND TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE ADVERSE STATEMENTS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE A SSESSEE WHICH COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED SATISFACTORILY. NO SUCH L INK IS FORTHCOMING IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5.7 THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. FROSTAIR P. LTD. [SUPRA] DEALS WITH A SITUATION WHERE PAN OF THE INVESTORS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT CORRECT AND THE INVESTORS WERE NOT FILING THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS. THE SAME IS FACTUALLY DIFFERENT IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5.8 THE CASE LAW OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. NIPUN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS P. LTD. [SUPRA] , INTER-ALIA, DEALS WITH A SITUATION WHEREIN SUMMONS WAS ISSUED U/S 131 AND FIELD INQUIR IES REVEALED THAT NONE OF THE SUBSCRIBERS EXISTED AT THE GIVEN ADDRES S. NO SUCH INQUIRIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5.9 THE CASE LAW OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. PRECISION FINANCE PVT. LTD. [SUPRA] DEALS WITH A SITUATION WHEREIN INCOME TAX FILE NUMBERS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND TO BE N ON-EXISTENT OR INCOME TAX RECORDS DID NOT TALLY WITH DETAILS FURNI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 15 5.10 EXTENSIVE INQUIRIES WERE MADE BY LD. AO IN THE CASE LAW OF CIT VS. NDR PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. [SUPRA] TO CONTROVERT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. 5.11 IN THE CASE OF ADVANCE POWERINFRA TECH LTD. VS. DCIT [SUPRA] , ONLY PAN WAS FILED TO EXPLAIN CREDITWORTHINESS AND SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE. 5.12 LASTLY, THE CASE LAW OF ANGEL PIPES & TUBES P.LTD. VS. ITO [SUPRA] DEALS WITH A SITUATION WHEREIN THE MATTER OF ADDITI ON HAS BEEN RESTORED BACK TO FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE CASE LAWS AS RELIED UPON BY LD . CIT-DR, IN OUR OPINION IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES. 6.1 IN THE PRESENT CASE, SO FAR AS THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTORS, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS & GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT ALL THE INVESTORS WERE HAVING PERMANENT ACCOUN T NUMBER AND WERE DULY FILING THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS. THE AUDITED F INANCIAL STATEMENTS WERE PLACED ON RECORD. THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD CON FIRMED THE INVESTMENTS. IN FACT, IT IS THE FINDING OF LD. AO T HAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE SHAPE OF SHARE CAPITAL AS WELL AS SHARE PREMIUM WAS MADE BY THESE ENTITIES OUT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE UNSECURED LOAN / R ESERVES / OTHER LIABILITIES / SHARE PREMIUM ACCOUNT WHICH CONTRADICTS / NEGATE THE STAND OF LD. AO THAT THE ENTITIES WERE SHOWING MEAGRE PROFITS AND H AD NO SOURCE TO MAKE THE STATED INVESTMENTS. NOTHING ON RECORD SUGGEST T HAT ANY MONEY GOT EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE INVESTOR ENT ITIES WHICH FLEW BACK IN THE SHAPE OF SHARE CAPITAL / SHARE PREMIUM. ANOTHER PERTINENT OBSERVATION TO BE MADE IS THAT AS PER LD. AOS FIND ING, THE IMPUGNED AY WAS THE INITIAL YEAR OF BUSINESS OPERATION OF THE A SSESSEE COMPANY AND THEREFORE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAT THE ASSES SEE ACCUMULATED HUGE 16 UNACCOUNTED MONEY WHICH WAS PLOUGHED BACK IN THE SH APE OF SHARE CAPITAL / SHARE PREMIUM. PROCEEDING FURTHER, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE THROUGH BANKING CHANN ELS WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS SHARE APPLICANTS AS PLACED ON RECORD. THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS WOULD CONVI NCE US TO FORM AN OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN ESTABLI SHING THE FULFILMENT OF PRIMARY CONDITION OF SECTION 68. TO FORM THIS OPINI ON, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE CASE LAWS BEING RELIED UPON BY LD. AR AS E NUMERATED IN SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS. 6.2 IN THE DECISION OF PR.CIT VS. M/S. PARADISE INLAND SHIPPING PVT.LTD. [SUPRA], HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, ON SIMILAR FACTUAL MATRI X, OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 5. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATIONS TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL AND WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE R ECORDS. THE BASIC CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANTS REVOLVES UPON THE STAND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANTS WHETHER THE SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE INVESTED IN THE SHARES OF THE RESPONDENTS ARE FICTITIOUS OR NOT. IN THIS CONNECTI ON, THE RESPONDENTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR STAND ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIO N ENTERED INTO WITH SUCH COMPANIES HAS PRODUCED VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTS WHICH, INTER ALIA, HAVE BEEN NOTED AT PARA 3 OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIT APPEALS WHICH READS THUS : 'THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED WITHOUT REBUTTING THE 550 PAGE DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE UNFLINCHING RECORDS OF THE COMPANIES. THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED ON 09.03.2015 ARE AS FOLLOWS : 1. SONY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. - CIN U74899DL1995P LC068362- DATE OF REGISTRATION 09/05/1995 ( A ) MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND ARTICLE OF ASSOCIATIO N ( B ) CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION ( C ) CERTIFICATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS ( D ) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AY 08-09 ( E ) AFFIDAVIT OF THE DIRECTOR CONFIRMING THE INVESTMENT ( F ) APPLICATION FOR ALLOTMENT OF SHARES ( G ) PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHARE CERTIFICATE 17 ( H ) AUDITED ACCOUNT AND DIRECTORS REPORT THEREON INCLUD ING BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND SCHEDULE S FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2009. ( I ) AUDITED ACCOUNT AND DIRECTORS REPORT THEREON INCLUD ING BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND SCHEDU LES FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2010 ( J ) THE BANK STATEMENT HIGHLIGHTING RECEIPT OF THE AMOU NT BY WAY OF RTGS. ( K ) BANKS CE RTIFICATE CERTIFYING THE RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS.' 6. ON GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN PRO DUCED WHICH ARE BASICALLY FROM THE PUBLIC OFFICES, WHICH MAINTAIN THE RECORDS OF THE COMPANIES. THE DOCUMENTS ALSO INCLUDE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR LAST T HREE PRECEDING YEARS OF SUCH COMPANIES. 7. THE APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW SU CH COMPANIES HAVE BEEN ASSESSED THOUGH ACCORDING TO THEM SUCH COMPANIES AR E NOT EXISTING AND ARE FICTITIOUS COMPANIES. BESIDES THE DOCUMENTS ALSO IN CLUDED THE REGISTRATION OF THE COMPANY WHICH DISCLOSES THE REGISTERED ADDRESS OF S UCH COMPANIES. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANTS WHICH COULD REBUT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN. IN SUCH CIRCUMS TANCES, THE FINDING OF FACT ARRIVED AT BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHICH ARE BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PERVERSE. LEARNED COUNS EL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANTS WAS UNABLE TO POINT OUT THAT ANY OF SUCH FINDINGS A RRIVED AT BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE ON THE BASIS OF MISLEADING OF EVIDENCE OR FAIL URE TO EXAMINE ANY MATERIAL DOCUMENTS WHILST COMING TO SUCH CONCLUSIONS. UNDER THE GUISE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW, THIS COURT IN AN APPEAL UNDER SECT ION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CANNOT RE-APPRECIATE THE EVIDENCE TO COME TO ANY CO NTRARY EVIDENCE. CONSIDERING THAT THE AUTHORITIES HAVE RENDERED THE FINDINGS OF FACTS BASED ON DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED, WE FIND THAT THERE ARE NO S UBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL FOR CONSIDERATION. 8. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ORISSA CORPN. (P.) LTD. ( SUPRA ), HAS OBSERVED AT PARA 13 THUS : '13. 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 INDEX N UMBER WAS IN THE FILE OF THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE, APART FROM ISSUING NOTICE S UNDER S. 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 ALLEGE D CREDITORS TO FIND OUT WHETHER THEY WERE CREDIT-WORTHY OR WERE SUCH WHO CO ULD ADVANCE THE ALLEGED LOANS. THERE WAS NO EFFORT MADE TO PURSUE THE SO CA LLED ALLEGED CREDITORS. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DO ANYT HING FURTHER. IN THE PREMISES, IF THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE BURDEN THAT LAY ON HIM THEN IT COULD 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 CON CLUSION COULD BE ARRIVED AT, NO QUESTION OF LAW AS SUCH ARISES.' 18 9. THIS COURT IN THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LEA RNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENTS, HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH COMPANIES, THE BURDEN WOULD SHIFT ON THE REVENUE-APPELLANTS HEREIN TO EST ABLISH THEIR CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANTS ARE SEEKING TO RELY UPON THE S TATEMENTS RECORDED OF TWO PERSONS WHO HAVE ADMITTEDLY NOT BEEN SUBJECTED TO C ROSS EXAMINATION. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE QUESTION OF REMANDING THE MATTER FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF SUCH PERSONS, WOULD NOT AT ALL BE JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, IF HE SO DESIRED, OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE SUCH PERSONS IN CASE THE STATEMENTS WERE TO BE RELIED UPON IN SUCH PROCEEDIN GS. APART FROM THAT, THE VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS CA NNOT BE DISCARDED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE GIVEN THEI R STATEMENTS CONTRARY TO SUCH PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. 10. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS ARRIVED AT BY THE ITAT AS WELL AS CIT APPEALS ON THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANTS-REVENUE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND, AS SUCH, THE QUESTION OF INTERFERENCE BY THIS COURT IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WOULD NOT AT ALL BE JUSTIFIED. APART FROM THAT, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARIN G FOR THE RESPONDENTS, THE CIT APPEALS HAD ALSO NOTED THAT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTI ON 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CANNOT LEAD TO RE- VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS. THE SE FINDINGS OF THE CIT APPEALS HAVE NOT BEEN ASSAILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE C OURT. 11. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO CA SE MADE OUT BY THE APPELLANTS- REVENUE FOR ANY INTERFERENCE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE COURTS BELOW. THE AFORESAID DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED B Y HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY WAY OF DISMISSAL OF REVENUES SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION REPORTED AT 93 TAXMANN.COM 84. SIMILAR ARE THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN SUNSHINE METALS & ALLOYS INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD. VS. IT O [SUPRA] & DCIT VS. PIRAMAL REALTY PVT.LTD. [SUPRA]. THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. GAGANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE (P.) LTD. [80 TAXMANN.COM 272] HELD AS UNDER: - WE FIND THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT H AS BEEN INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2012 WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2013. THUS IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE ONLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ONWARDS AND NOT FOR THE SUB JECT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN FACT, BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT WAS NOT EVEN THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AS IN FORCE DURING THE SUBJECT YEARS HAS TO BE READ/UNDERSTOOD AS THOUGH THE PROVISO ADDED SUBSEQUENTLY EFFECTIVE ONLY FROM 1ST APRIL, 2013 WAS ITS NORMAL MEANING. THE PARLIAMENT DID NOT INTRODUCE TO PROVIS O TO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT NOR DOES THE PROVISO SO INTROD UCED STATES THAT IT WAS INTRODUCED 'FOR REMOVAL OF DOUBTS' OR THAT IT IS 'DECLARATORY' . THEREFORE IT IS NOT OPEN TO GIVE IT RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, BY PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS TH AT THE ADDITION OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS IMMATERIAL AND DOES NOT CH ANGE THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE ADDING OF T HE PROVISO. IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER THE THREE ESSENTIAL TESTS WHILE CONFIRMING T HE PRE-PROVISO SECTION 68 OF THE 19 ACT LAID DOWN BY THE COURTS NAMELY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, IDENTITY AND THE CAPACITY OF THE INVESTOR HAVE ALL BEEN EXAMINED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ON FACTS IT WAS FOUND SATISFIED. FURTH ER IT WAS A SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT SUCH LARGE AMOUNT OF SHARE PREMIUM GIVES RISE TO SUSPICION ON THE GENUINENESS (IDENTITY) OF THE SHAREHOLDERS I.E. THE Y ARE BOGUS. THE APEX COURT IN LOVELY EXPORTS (P.) LTD. ( SUPRA ) IN THE CONTEXT TO THE PRE-AMENDED SECTION 68 OF T HE ACT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE REVENUE URGES THAT THE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS THE N IT IS FOR THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO PROCEED BY REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT OF S UCH SHAREHOLDERS AND ASSESSING THEM TO TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT DO ES NOT ENTITLE THE REVENUE TO ADD THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME AS UNEXPLAINED CA SH CREDIT. 6.3 SO FAR AS THE JUSTIFICATION OF SHARE PREMIUM IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN IN ITS INVESTMENT NOTE, ADOPT ED DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW METHOD TO ARRIVE AT THE VALUATION OF SHARES. BE THA T AS THE CASE MAY BE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT QUANT UM OF PREMIUM WAS MATTER BETWEEN ASSESSEE COMPANY ISSUING THE SHARES AND INVESTOR ENTITIES AND THE PAYMENT OF HIGH PREMIUM, IN ITSELF , COULD NOT BE THE BASIS OF MAKING ADDITION IN ASSESSEES HAND UNLESS THERE WAS ANY ILLEGALITY OR RESTRICTION, UNDER LAW, TOWARDS RECEIPT OF HIGH SHA RE PREMIUM. OUR VIEW IS IN LINE WITH THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH RENDERED IN PR.CIT VS. CHAIN HOUSE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. [SUP RA] AS CONFIRMED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY DISMISSAL OF REVENUES SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION REPORTED AT 103 TAXMANN.COM 435 , WHEREIN IT HAS, INTER- ALIA, BEEN HELD THAT IT WAS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO DECIDE THE QUANTUM OF PREMIUM AND IT WAS THE WISDOM OF THE SHAREHOLDERS WHETHER THEY WANTED TO SUBSCRIBE TO TH E SHARES AT SUCH A PREMIUM. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE CO URT WERE AS UNDER:- 52. ISSUING THE SHARE AT A PREMIUM WAS A COMMERCIAL DE CISION. IT IS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A COMPANY TO DECIDE TH E PREMIUM AMOUNT AND IT IS THE WISDOM OF SHAREHOLDER WHETHER THEY WANT TO SUBSCRIB E THE SHARES AT SUCH A PREMIUM OR NOT. THIS WAS A MUTUAL DECISION BETWEEN BOTH THE COMPANIES. IN DAY TO DAY MARKET, UNLESS AND UNTIL, THE RATES IS FIXED BY ANY GOVT. AUTHORITY OR UNLESS THERE IS ANY RESTRICTION ON THE AMOUNT OF SHARE PREMIUM U NDER ANY LAW, THE PRICE OF THE SHARES IS DECIDED ON THE MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF TH E PARTIES CONCERNED. 20 53. ONCE THE GENUINENESS, CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTIT Y ARE ESTABLISHED, THE REVENUE SHOULD NOT JUSTIFIABLY CLAIM TO PUT ITSELF IN THE ARMCHAIR OF A BUSINESSMAN OR IN THE POSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ASSUM E THE ROLE OF ASCERTAINING HOW MUCH IS A REASONABLE PREMIUM HAVING REGARD TO THE C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 54. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE RECEIPT OF FUNDS THR OUGH BANKING CHANNEL NOR THERE IS ANY DISPUTE ABOUT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE INVESTORS AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYON D ANY DOUBT AND THERE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY QUESTION OR DISPUTE ABOUT PREMIUM PAID BY THE INVESTORS THEREFORE, UNLESS THERE IS A LIMITATION PUT BY THE LAW ON THE AMOUNT OF PREMIUM, THE TRANSACTION SHOULD NOT BE QUESTIONED MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY THINKS THAT THE INVESTOR COULD HAVE MANAGED BY PAYING A LE SSER AMOUNT AS SHARE PREMIUM AS A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN. THE TEST OF PRUDENCE BY S UBSTITUTING ITS OWN VIEW IN PLACE OF THE BUSINESSMAN'S HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE DECISIONS OF CIT V. WALCHAND & CO. (P.) LTD. [1967] 65 ITR 381 AND J.K. WOOLLEN MFG. V. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC). 55. THE QUESTION OF SHARE PREMIUM HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ANSHIKA CONSULTANTS (P.) LTD. [2015] 62 TAXMANN.COM 192 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THUS : 'THE ONUS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 O F THE ACT TO SATISFY THE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE TRUE IDENTITY OF AN INVESTOR, ITS CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF A TRANSACTION WAS EXPLAINED BY THE S UPREME COURT IN CIT V. LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD., [2008] 216 CTR 195,. WHILST, THE AO ACTED LEGITIMAT ELY IN ENQUIRING INTO THE MATTER, THE INFERENCES DRAWN BY HIM WERE NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CHARGED A HIGHER PREMIUM OR NOT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT MA TTER OF THE ENQUIRY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. INSTEAD, THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER THE AMOUNT INVESTED BY THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE FROM LEGITIMATE SOURCES. THE OBJECT IVE OF SECTION 68 IS TO AVOID INCLUSION OF AMOUNT WHICH ARE SUSPECT. THEREFORE, T HE EMPHASIS ON GENUINENESS OF ALL THE THREE ASPECTS, IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINES S AND THE TRANSACTION. WHAT IS DISQUIETING IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WHEN THE ASSESSM ENT WAS COMPLETED ON 31.12.2007, THE INVESTIGATION REPORT WHICH WAS SPEC IFICALLY CALLED FROM THE CONCERNED DEPARTMENT IN KOLKATA WAS AVAILABLE BUT N OT DISCUSSED BY THE AO. HAD HE CARED TO DO SO, THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTORS, T HE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS WO ULD HAVE BEEN APPARENT. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE SHARE APPLICANTS' PARTICULARS WERE A VAILABLE WITH THE AO IN THE FORM OF BALANCE SHEETS INCOME TAX RETURNS, PAN DETAILS E TC. WHILE ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT HE DID, THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER IT WORTHWHILE TO MAKE ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY BUT BASED HIS ORDER ON THE HIGH NATURE OF T HE PREMIUM AND CERTAIN FEATURES WHICH APPEARED TO BE SUSPECT, TO DETERMINE THAT THE AMOUNT HAD BEEN ROUTED FROM THE ASSESSEE'S ACCOUNT TO THE SHARE APP LICANTS' ACCOUNT. AS HELD CONCURRENTLY BY THE CIT (APPEALS) AND THE ITAT, THE SE CONCLUSIONS WERE CLEARLY BASELESS AND FALSE. THIS COURT IS CONSTRAINED TO OB SERVE THAT THE AO UTTERLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH HIS DUTY CONSIDERS ALL THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, IGNORING SPECIFICALLY THE MOST CRUCIAL DOCUMENTS.' 56-57. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT IF THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS PROVED NO ADDITIO N UNDER SECTION 68 COULD BE MADE AND NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. THE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. METACHEM INDUSTRIES [2000] 245 ITR 160/[2001] 116 TAXMAN 572 (MP) HAS HELD THUS : 21 'ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN IN VESTED BY A PARTICULAR PERSON, BE HE A PARTNER OR AN INDIVIDUAL, THEN THE RESPONSI BILITY OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS OVER. THE ASSESSEE-FIRM CANNOT ASK THAT PERSON WHO MAKES INVESTMENT WHETHER THE MONEY INVESTED IS PROPERLY TAXED OR NOT. THE AS SESSEE IS ONLY TO EXPLAIN THAT THIS INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE PARTICULAR IND IVIDUAL AND IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT INDIVIDUAL TO ACCOUNT FOR TH E INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM. IF THAT PERSON OWNS THAT ENTRY, THEN THE BURDEN OF THE ASSE SSEE-FIRM IS DISCHARGED. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO UNDERTAKE FURTHER INVESTIGATION WITH REGARD TO THAT INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS DEPOSITED THIS AMOUNT. SO FAR AS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, IT IS SATISFACTORILY DISCHAR GED. WHETHER THAT PERSON IS AN INCOME-TAX PAYER OR NOT OR FROM WHERE HE HAS BROUGH T THIS MONEY IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FIRM. THE MOMENT THE FIRM GIV ES A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AND PRODUCES THE PERSON WHO HAS DEPOSITED THE AMOUN T, THEN THE BURDEN OF THE FIRM IS DISCHARGED AND IN THAT CASE THAT CREDIT ENT RY CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE FIRM FOR THE PURPOSES OF INCOME-TAX. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT, AGAINST THE PERSON WHO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENT.' ANOTHER ASPECT OF THIS IS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 56(2)(VIIB) WERE APPLICABLE ONLY WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/2013 AND THE SAME WERE NOT APPLICABLE DURING IMPUGNED AY. 6.4 THE CONSIDERATION OF THE TOTALITY OF ABOVE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEAD US TO INEVITABLE CONCLUSION THAT LD. CIT(A) WA S JUSTIFIED IN PROVIDING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF CATENA OF JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS DISCUSSED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. FINDING NO INFIRMI TY IN THE SAME WE DISMISS THE APPEAL. 7. RESULTANTLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/05/2019. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (MA NOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 16/05/2019 SR.PS, JAISY VARGHESE 22 !'#$ # / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '#! / THE RESPONDENT 3. * ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. * / CIT CONCERNED 5. + , '%- , - , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , ./ / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.
Mehul