M/s. M.G. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3042/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3723 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MONGA
• Assessee Lawyers: R K KAPOOR C AS
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Additional evidence; Assessment record; Reason to believe
• Section: 142(1); 147; 27; 148; 144; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.K. HALDAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3042/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01 M/S M.G. PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., DCIT, WZ-447, 3 RD FLOOR, MS BLOCK, CIRCLE-6 (1), HARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AACCM AACCM AACCM AACCM- -- -7473 7473 7473 7473- -- -N NN N APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRADEEP DINODIA & SHR I R.K. KAPOOR, C.AS. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K. MONGA, SR. DR. ORDER PER B.K. HALDAR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LD CIT(A) IX, NEW DELHI DATED 17.3.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2000-01. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEALS:- 1. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW, ON FACTS A ND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 148 READ WITH SECTION 150 TO 153 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING T HAT ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 IS VALID AL THOUGH PAGE 2 OF 11 ITA NO3042./DEL/10 THE NOTICE HAD NOT BEEN ERVED ON THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD. 3. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147/148 BEYOND THE STATUTOR Y TIME FRAME MAY PLEASE BE HAD TO BE INVALID AND INFRU CTUOUS. 4. THE ORDER PASSED U/S 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 IS BAD IN LAW. 5. THAT THE ADDITION OF `.8,00,000/- U/S 68 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT IS BAD IN LAW, 6. THAT IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE ADDITION OF `.3,00,000/- IS BASED ON MERE CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AN D IS THEREFORE BAD IN LAW. 7. THAT EACH GROUND OF APPEAL IS INDEPENDENT AND WITHOU T PREJUDICE TO OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED HEREIN. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY CARRYING O N THE BUSINESS OF NON BANKING FINANCIAL COMPANY (NBFC). THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FOR `.5,00 ,000/- FROM M/S SHRUTI FINSTOCK LTD. ON 25.3.2000. ON THE BASIS OF TH E ABOVE INFORMATION, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND A NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED O N 30.3.2007 WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 31.3.2007. 3. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ON 3.9.2007. WHEN NONE ATTENDED. ON THE SAME DATE, THE AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS CONTACTED ON TELEPHONE WHO ATTENDED ON 5.9.2007AND HE ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN C OMPANYS ADDRESS WHICH WAS NOT INTIMATED TO THE DEPARTMENT. TH E AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME BY 12,.9.2007 . HOWEVER, THE AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME BUT NO DETAILS PAGE 3 OF 11 ITA NO3042./DEL/10 ASKED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FURNISHED. HOWEVER , ON 6.9.2007, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER INTIMATING THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 12.9.2007 REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME BY 3 RD OCTOBER, 2007. REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WAS INTIMATED AND THE SAME WAS NOTED BY THE AR FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE E. AS NO RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WAS AVAIL ABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE ASKED TO FILE THE SAME OR A COPY OF THE SAME IF IT WAS FURNISHED EARLIER. HOWEVER, IT WAS CON TENDED BY THE AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTIMATED THE AR THAT NOTICE U/S 1 48 WAS SENT BY SPEED POST ON 30.3.2007 AND AS THE SAME WAS NOT RETURNE D BACK, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE SAME WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS O F SECTION 27 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ALSO RELIED ON ORDER-V, RULE 19A OF THE C.P.C. READ WITH SECTION 282 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. SUBSEQUENTLY ON 3.10.2007, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS ASKED FOR ON 15.10.2007 AND IT WAS INTIMAT ED THAT IF NOTHING WAS FURNISHED BY THAT DATE, THE ASSESSMENT WOULD BE COM PLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEES REPLY TO THE ABOVE WAS AS UNDER:- THAT THE MANAGEMENT AND REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE CO MPANY WAS CHANGED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND ACCORDINGLY THE OLD RECORDS OF THE COMPANY IS NOT READILY AVAILABLE WITH US. HOWEVER, THE COMPANY HAVE REQUESTED THE PREVIOUS DIRE CTORS TO SEARCH THE OLD RECORDS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000- 01. PAGE 4 OF 11 ITA NO3042./DEL/10 5. THE CASE WAS FURTHER RE-FIXED FOR HEARING ON 12.11 .2007 AND A NOTICE U7.S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 22.10.2007 ASKING THE A SSESSEE TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING DETAILS:- 1. BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 (F.Y. 1999-2000). 2. PHOTOCOPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND OPERATED BY THE ASSESSE E DURING THE SAID A.Y. (F.Y. 1999-2000). 3. RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2000-01 (ALONG WITH COMPU TATION OF INCOME, BALANCE SHEET, P&L A/C AND TAX AUDITORS U/S 44AB OF THE ACT, IF APPLICABLE). 4. COPY RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 1999-2000, A.Y. 2000 -01, A.Y. 2002-03 (ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME, BALANCE SHEET, P&L A/C AND TAX AUDITORS U/S 44AB OF THE ACT, IF APPLICA BLE). 5. COMPREHENSIVE NOTE ON NATURE OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS CAR RIED OUT SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE COMPANY WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO F.Y. 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 & 1998-99. 6. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE MANAGEMENT AND REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE COM PANY WAS CHANGED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND ACCORDINGLY THE OLD RECORDS OF THE COMPANY UP TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 (F.Y. 2001-02) WAS MISPLACED AT THE TIME OF SHIFTING OF REGI STERED OFFICE OF THE COMPANY. HENCE, AT PRESENT, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO SUBMIT THE REQUIRED DETAILS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 00-01. 2. THAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT LIABLE FOR TAX AUDIT U/S 44A B OF THE ACT SINCE INCEPTION. PAGE 5 OF 11 ITA NO3042./DEL/10 3. THAT THE COMPANY IS A NON BANKING FINANCIAL COMPANY AND CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT AND FINANCIAL SIN CE INCEPTION. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RECEIVED FOLLOWING INFORMA TION FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING:- BENEFICIARYS NAME BENEFI- CIARY BANK NAME BENEFICI ARY BANK BRANCH VALUE OF ENTRY TAKEN INSTRU MENT NO.BY WHICH ENTRY TAKEN DATE ON WHICH ENTRY TAKEN NAME OF A/C HOLDER OF ENTRY GIVING A/C. BANK FROM WHICH ENTRY GIVEN BRANCH OF ENTRY GIVING BANK A/C NO. ENTRY GIVING ACCOUNT PERTAI N TO A.Y. MG PORTFOLIO(P) LTD. PNB PARSHANT VIHAR 500000 450654 15.2.03 VED FINLEASE PVT. LTD. ALLAHABAD BANK OKHLA 106973 03- 04 MG PORTFOLIO(P) LTD. PNB PARSHANT VIHAR CLNG 110-24- 22 1000000 30871 12.3.03 MAETTRO MARKETING AND ADVERTISING KVB KAROL AGH CA 2815 03- 04 MG PORTFOLIO (P) LTD. PNB PARSHANT VIHAR 1000000 TO CLG 00254866 12.3.03 FAIR N SQUARE EXPORTS P. LTD. SB INDORE ROHINI 50058 03- 04 MG PORTFOLIO P. LTD. PNB PACHIM VIHAR 1000000 O 29936 15.3.03 POLOLEASING & FINANCE P LTD. VIJAYA RAMANAGR 2846 03- 04 MG PORTFOLIO P. LTD. PNB PARSHANT VIHAR 500000 257106 25.3.03 PRAKASH PUNIT COMMERCE & CONSULSTANT CORPORATION BANK PACHIM VIHAR 52364 03- 04 MG PORTFOLIO P LTD. PNB PARSHANT VIHAR 700000 257218 25.3.03 RUBIK EXPORTS LTD. CORPORATION BANK PACHIM VIHAR 52199 03- 04 MG PORTFOLIO P. LTD. PNB PARSHANT VIHAR 400000 309647 31.3.03 NU LOOK FINANCE AND LEASING LTD., ALLAHABAD BANK OKHLA 106974 03- 04. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF ALL AMOUNTS MENTION ED THERE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AS UNDER:- A) IT IS CLEAR FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANY THA T COMPANY HAS TAKEN SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF PAGE 6 OF 11 ITA NO3042./DEL/10 `.8,00,000/-ONLY DURING THE YEAR WHICH MAY ALSO INCL UDES `.5,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM M/S SHRUTI FINSTOCK LTD. B) THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT COMPANY HAS RECEIVE D ANY ACCOMMODATION ENTRY TO THE TUNE OF `.51,00,000/ - AS PROPOSED ON YOUR LETTER DATED 14.11.2007 DURING THE F.Y. ENDING ON 31.3.2000. 8. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF `.8,00,000/- WERE INTRODUCED DURING THE RELEVANT PR EVIOUS YEAR. AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SHOW THAT `.5,00,000/- WAS NOT ACCOMMO DATION ENTRY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT WAS ASSESSEES OWN UNDISCLOSED INCOME THAT WAS INTRODUCED IN TH E FORM OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FROM M/S SHRUTI FINSTOCK LTD. AND ADDED THIS AMOUNT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 9. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT FILE ANY SPECIFIC EXPLANATIO N WITH REFERENCE TO REMAINING `.3,00,000/- INTRODUCED AS SHA RE APPLICATION MONEY DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. IT WAS ALSO SU BMITTED THAT NO FURTHER EVIDENCE/INFORMATION COULD BE FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ADDED THE I MPUGNED AMOUNT OF `.3,00,000/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 10. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). 11. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSE SSEE THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT NOTICE U /S 148 WAS SERVED WITHIN SPECIFIED PERIOD ON THE ASSESSEE AND THEREF ORE THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT WAS IN-VA LID. THE LD CIT(A), PAGE 7 OF 11 ITA NO3042./DEL/10 HOWEVER, OPINED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. IT WAS ALSO VERIFIED BY HIM THAT THE RELEVANT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SENT BY SPEED POST ON 30.3.2007. RELYING ON THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURTS JUDGMENTS IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MADHSY FILMS (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 301 ITR 69, IT WAS HELD BY THE LD CIT(A) THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS VALIDLY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE WITHIN SPECIFIED PERIOD. HE, THEREFOR E, UPHELD THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 12. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF `.5,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM M/S SHRUTI FINSTOCK LTD. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE PRESENT MANAGEMENT DUR ING FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 AND THEREFORE THE INFORMATION RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE PRESENT MANAG EMENT OF THE COMPANY,. THE AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, SOUGHT PERMI SSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITH REFERENCE TO M/S SHRUTI FIN STOCK LTD. WHICH ARE ENUMERATED HERE UNDER:- 1. RETURN OF INCOME , ASSESSMENT ORDER; 2. BALANCE SHEET 3. MOA 4. CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION. 5. CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION 6. COPIES OF FORM NO.23AC, 7. FORM NO.20B, FORM NO. 32, FORM NO.18, 8. INFORMATION OF DIRECTORS, AND 9. NOTICE OF AGM ETC. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT M/S SH RUTI FINSTOCK LTD. HAD APPLIED FOR THE SHARE OF THE APPELLANT COMP ANY DURING THE PAGE 8 OF 11 ITA NO3042./DEL/10 RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR OR THE MODE OF PAYMENT OF SUC H SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, THE BALANCE SHEET FURNISHED WAS A LSO NOT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. THE LD CIT(A), THEREFORE, OPINED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RELEVANT FOR D ECIDING THE ISSUE AT HAND. 13. IN REGARD TO ADDITION OF `.3,00,000/-, IT WAS CO NTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S ANTRIKSHA SEC URITIES (P) LTD. TO ESTABLISH THE SAME THE AUDITORS REPORT, BALANC E SHEET EXTRACTS OF THE COMPANY PERTAINING TO DIFFERENT YEARS FROM 19 99 -2006 WERE FURNISHED. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT 4360 SHARES WERE ALLOT TED TO THE SAID COMPANY WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF OTHER PERSON. HERE AGAIN, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS ADDUC ED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF RECEIPT OF `.3,00,000/- FR OM M/S ANTRIKSHA SECURITIES (P) LTD. 14. IN THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE, THE LD CIT(A) NOTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL SORTS OF DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM IT HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED SHARE APPLI CATION MONEY, NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS WERE RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE O F ESTABLISHING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION. NO CONF IRMATION OF SHARE APPLICATION FROM THESE TWO PARTIES WERE FURNISHED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS BEFORE HIM. ACCORDING TO THE LD CIT(A) THE BURDEN WAS ON THE ASSESSE E TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE SAME WAS NOT DISCHARGED. MERE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR TAKING OUT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS FROM THE AMBIT OF SE CTION 68 OF THE ACT. HE, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N. 15. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. PAGE 9 OF 11 ITA NO3042./DEL/10 16. BEFORE US, LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. NOTHING WAS PRODU CED/FURNISHED TO CONTRADICT THE FACTUAL FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD CIT( A) ON THE ADDITIONS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE LD AR FOR THE A SSESSEE ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WHEREIN THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SENT BY SPEED POST ON 30.3.2007 TO THE ADDRESS WHICH WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT N O SHARE APPLICATION FORM IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE IM PUGNED PARTIES DID APPLY FOR THE SHARE ARE ALSO AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. 17. LD DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. AS REGARDS THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE A CT, SECTION 149 OF THE ACT LAYS DOWN THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. THE TIME LIMIT HAS BEEN FIXED FOR ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE AND NOT SERVICE. THE IMPUGNED ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE APEX COURT LONG BACK IN THE CASE OF RK UPADHAYAYA V. SHANABHAI P. PATEL REPORTED IN 166 ITR 163 (SC). IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 30.3.2007. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO MERIT I N THE GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND REJECT THE SAME. 19. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF `.8,00,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT, THE LD CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE GE NUINENITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FI ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRIMA FACIE PROVE THAT THE IMPUGNED PAGE 10 OF 11 ITA NO3042./DEL/10 AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BY IT AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE SAID TWO PARTIES. THE MODE OF RECEIPT OF THE SAID AMOUNT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BY PRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE. IT HAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THE SAID TWO PARTIES. THUS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO D ISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON IT TO PROVE THE GENUINENITY OF TRANSACTI ON ENTERED INTO WITH THE SAID TWO PARTIES IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 OF TH E IT ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND CONFIRM THE SAME. THUS, GROUND NO.5 & 6 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO REJECTED. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. 21. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAY O F 10TH JUNE, 20- 11. SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL) (B.K. HAL DAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 10.6.2011. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). PAGE 11 OF 11 ITA NO3042./DEL/10 DATE OF HEARING 16.5.2011 DATE OF DICTATION 1.6.2011 DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY THE HON'BLE MEMBER. DATE OF ORDER SENT TO THE CONCERNED BENCH