Singhal Sunrise Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 3103/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5885 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SEKHON
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Accommodation entries; Onus to prove
• Section: 142(1); 133(6); 250; 274; 143(2); 207; 264; 64; 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3103 /DEL/201 5 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010 - 1 1 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD., 241, LOHA MANDI, GHAZIABAD VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), GHAZIABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A AJCS7938P ASSESSEE BY : SH. M. S. SEKHON, CA REVENUE BY : SH . N. K. BANSAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEAR ING: 21 . 08 .201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18 .09 .201 9 ORDER PER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR , A CCOUNTANT M EMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR DATED 16.02.2015 . 2 . FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE: 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUZAFFARNAGAR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.79,00,000/ - AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.2,29,830/ - . 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.79,00,000/ - RECEIVED AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE FACTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 2 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A CLOSELY HELD PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. ASSESSEE HAS FILED IT S INCOME TAX RETURN ON DT.30/9/2010 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,29,830/ - . THE COMPANY HAS SH. ANIL SINGHAL, SH. SALEK CHAND SINGHAL, MS. SUSHMA SINGHAL AND SH. UMESH KUMAR SINGHAL AS DIRECTORS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF IRON & STEELS. 5. BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSE E FIRM STANDS IT AT RS.2,91,08,993.59/ - AS ON 31.03.2010, WHEREIN ISSUED SHARE CAPITAL HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.4,00,000/ - FURTHER, SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.85,00,000/ - AS ON 31.03.2010. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS ASSE SSEE WAS ENQUIRED VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 03.08.2012 TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY SHOWN AT RS.85,00,000/ - ./IT WAS ASKED TO FURNISH NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESSES AND PAN OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS RECEI VED ALONG WITH COPY OF THEIR BANK STATEMENT, COPY OF BALANCE - SHEET AND CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT IN SUPPORT OF IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE PERSONS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY CONVINC ING EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF SAID TRANSACTIONS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD FOLLOWING OPPORTUNITIES WERE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER: ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 3 S. NO. NOTICE/ORDER SHEET DATE INFORMATION SOUGHT DATE FIXED COMPLIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE 1 28.09.2013 NOTICE U/S 143(2) SUBSTANTIATE THE DETAIL FILED IN ITR 10.10.2011 NO COMPLIANCE 2 03.08.2012 PERSONALLY SERVED NOTICE U/S 142(1) WITH QUESTIONNAIRE, DETAILS OF PERSONS FROM WHOM SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED ALONG WITH COMPLETE BUSINESS DETAILS. 14.08.2012 ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT ADJOURNED TO 28.08.2012 3 28.08.2012 NO COMPLIANCE MADE. 4 08.10.2012 AGAIN FOR NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF SHARE APPLICANT. 16.10.2012 PART REPLY 5 16.10.2012 AGAIN ASKED TO FURNISH REQUISITE DETAILS 22.10.2012 NO DETAILS 6 22.10.2012 AGAIN SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO FURNISH NAME AND CURRENT ADDRESSES OF SHARE APPLICANT. 01.11.2012 PART REPLY, DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT STILL NOT FURNISHED 7 01.11.2012 ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT, NO COMPLIANCE 06.11.2012 8 06.11.2012 REMAINING DETAILS 23.11.2012 ONLY NA ME & ADDRESS OF SHARE APPLICANT FURNISHED. 9 23.11.2012 REMAINING DETAILS. 07.12.2012 COPY OF ITR, BANK STATEMENT, BALANCE - SHEET ETC OF SHARE APPLICANT FURNISHED 10 07.12.2012 NO COMPLIANCE MADE. 11 10.01.2013 IT IS INTIMATED THAT NONE OF THE COMPANIES FOUND AT GIVEN ADDRESSES. ASKED TO PRODUCE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF ALL THE COMPANIES ALONG WITH THEIR CURRENT ITR, BALANCE - SHEET PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR RECORDING OF THEIR STATEMENT. 21.01.2013 NO REPLY 12 29.01.2013 LETTER U/S 142(1) ISSUED AGAIN INTIMATING THAT ALL 8 COMPANIES NOT FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. IDENTITY OF THE COMPANIES NOT PROVED. AGAIN ASKED TO PRODUCE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF 05.02.2013 ROC RECORDS OF 1 COMPANY AND BALANCE - SHEET, P&L ACCOUNT OF 4 COMPANIES FURNISHED. ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 4 COMPANIES. REGISTERS OF GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS, FROM 01.04.2009 TILL DATE. 13 06.02.2013 ASKED TO PRODUCE CURRENT ADDRESSES OF COMPANIES WHERE SUMMONS U/S 131 CAN BE ISSUED TO THE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS, SO THAT PHYSICAL IDENTITY OF COMPANIES CAN BE ESTABLISHED. ALSO ASKED TO PRODUCE DIRECTORS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR RECORDING OF STATEMENT 11.02.2013 NO REPLY, NO ONE PRODUCED, REGISTERS ALSO NOT PRODUCED. 14 11.02.2013 TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ALSO ASKED TO PRODUCE DIRECTORS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICANT. 21.02.2013 WRITTEN SUBMISSION 15 21.02.2013 TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ALSO ASKED TO PRODUCE DIRECTORS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICANT. 06.03.2013 WRITTEN SUBMISSION 16 05.03.2013 TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ALSO ASKED TO PRODUCE DIRECTORS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICANT. WRITTEN SUBMISSION 17 12.03.2013 TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ALSO ASKED TO PRODUCE DIRECTORS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICANT. WRITTEN SUBMISSION 18 19.03.2013 TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ALSO ASKED TO PRODUCE DIRECTORS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICANT. WRITTEN SUBMISSION 7. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF COMPANIES FROM WHOM SHARE APPLICATION MONEY CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND TO PRODUCE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF THESE COMPANIES SO THAT GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS AND PHYSICAL EXISTENCE OF COMPANIES CAN BE E XAMINED. IT WAS ASKED TO FURNISH NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESSES AND PAN OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS RECEIVED ALONG WITH COPY OF THEIR BANK STATEMENT, COPY OF BALANCE - SHEET AND CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT IN SUPPORT OF IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THESE PERSONS AND GENUINENESS ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 5 OF TRANSACTION. DESPITE REPEATED REQUEST S AND AMPLE OPPORTUNITY, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE REPLY DATED 06.11.2012 COULD FURNISH ONLY LIST OF COMPANIES ALONG WITH THEIR ADDRESSES FROM WHOM SHARE APPLIC ATION MONEY WAS RECEIVED ALONG WITH THEIR ADDRESSES DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR AS UNDER : S. NO. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT COMPANY AMOUNT PAID AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ALONG WITH PREMIUM 1 SAFARI TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED, S - 561, ROOM NO. 218, BHAGWATI BUSINESS CENTRE, SCHOOL BLOCK, SHAKARPUR, NEW DELHI 6,00,000/ - 2 FOCUS TRADIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, D - 111, SOUTH GANESH NAGAR, MANDAWALI NEW DELHI 8,00,000/ - 3 NAMAN LAM PRIVATE LIMITED, ROOM NO.204 21ST CENTURY BUSINESS CENTRE, D - 64, SHAKARPUR NEW DELHI 13,00,000/ - 4 MONITOR SPRINT ELEVATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, ROOM NO.204 21ST CENTURY BUSINESS CENTRE, D - 64, SHAKARPUR NEW DELHI 10,00,000/ - 5 VISIT INDIA VOYAGES PRIVATE LIMITED, 108, SHOPPING COMPLEX, VEER SAVARKAR BLOCK, SHAKARPUR, NEW DELHI 14,00,000/ - 6 KABIR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, ROOM NO.204 21ST CENTURY BUSINESS CENTRE, D - 64, SHAKARPUR NEW DELHI 10,00,000/ - 7 RACHITA BUILDCON PVT. LTD., DA/4,106, DUA BUSINESS CENTRE, MAIN VIKAS MARG, SHAKARPUR DELHI 10,00,000/ - 8 ANUBHAV BUILDMART PRIVATE LIMITED, DA/4, 106, DUA BUSINESS CENTRE, MAIN VIKAS MARG, SHAKARPUR DELHI 10,00,000/ - 9 ANIL SINGHAL, R - 9/67, RAJ NAGAR, GHAZIABAD 1,50,000/ - 10 UMESH SINGHAL, R - 9/67, RAJ NAGAR, GHAZIABAD 1,50,000/ - 11 AMIT SINGHAL, R - 9/67, RAJ NAGAR, GHAZIABAD 1,50,000/ - 12 SALEK CHAND SINGHAL, R - 9/67, RAJ NAGAR, GHAZIABAD 1,50,000/ - 8. IT IS ALSO A MATTER ON RECORD THAT TILL FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09, ASSESSEE COMPANY HA S SHOWN SHARE CAPITAL TO THE TUNE OF RS.4 LACS ONLY AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.6 LACS AT THE BOOK VALUE OF RS.10/ - PER SHARE. DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 - 10, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TOTALING TO RS.79,00,000/ - FROM EI GHT COMPANIES ON PREMIUM OF RS.150/ - PER SHARE. NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WERE I SSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE AFORESAID PARTIES AND ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 6 OFFICIALS OF THE REVENUE WERE DEPUTED TO GET CONFIRMATION OF THE TRANSACTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSE E . H OWEVER, THE AFORESAID PARTIES WERE NOT FOUND AT THEIR RESPECTIVE ADDRESSES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS REPORTED BY THE OFFICIALS THAT NONE OF THE COMPANIES FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES AND NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) WERE RETURNED UN - SERVED. IT IS ALSO R EPORTED THAT THESE COMPANIES HAVE NEVER BEEN EXISTENT AT THE ADDRESSES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN NEW ADDRESS IN RESPECT OF TWO COMPANIES ARE AS UNDER: 1 SAFARI TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED, G - 18, GARG TOWER, NETAJI SUBHASH NAGAR, PITAMPUR A, NEW DELHI 6,00,000/ - 2 FOCUS TRADIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, YP - 43 B, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI 8,00,000/ - 9. IT IS ALSO FOUND FROM LOCAL INQUIRY AND PERSONS/CONCERNS FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES THAT THESE COMPANIES HAVE NEVER BEEN IN EXISTENCE AT RESPECTIVE ADDRESSES. OFFICIALS OF REVENUE INQUIRE D FROM THE OWNERS OF THE BUILDINGS WHO HAVE DENIED THAT THEY HAVE EVER GIVEN OFFICES TO THE SAID NAMED COMPANIES. THE ASSESSING O FFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 29.01. 2013 SOUGHT FROM ASSESSEE ABOUT THE STATUS OF EACH OF TH E ADDRESSES AS THE ADDRESS ROOM NO.204 , 21ST CENTURY B USINESS CENTRE, D - 64, SHAKARPUR, NEW DELHI WAS FOUND CLOSED FOR MANY YEARS AND LOCAL INQUIRY REVEALED THAT NAMAN LAM PRIVATE LIMITED, MONITOR SPRINT ELEVATORS PRIVATE LIMITED AND KABIR ENTERPRISES PRIVA TE LIMITED WERE NEVER IN EXISTENCE AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. CARETAKER OF THE BUILDING MS. MONA HAS CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS NEVER LET OUT TO ABOVE COMPANIES. OFFICE OWNED BY SH. PANKAJ MADAN PROP. PECIFIC CONSTRUCTION CO. HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THAT ABOVE COMPANIES HAVE NEVER BEEN IN EXISTENCE IN THE BUILDING. 10. LETTERS SENT AT ALL THE ABOVE ADDR ESSES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE ALSO BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED WITH THE REMARK 'NO SUCH CONCERN AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS'. ADDRESS WISE STATUS WAS INTIMATED VIDE ORDER - SHEET ENTRY DATED 10.01.2013 TO THE ASSESSEE . NEW ADDRESS OF M/S SAFARI TRADES AND ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 7 M/S FOCUS TRADIMPEX OF PITAMPURA WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE OF RESIDENTIAL AREA AND SOME OTHER PERSON IS RESIDING HAVING NO LINK WITH ABOVE COMPANIES . THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANIES RAISED THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUMENTS. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF ONLY M/S ANUBHAV BUILDMART PVT. LTD., M/S RACHITA BUILDCON PVT. LTD., M/S VISIT INDIA VOYAGES PVT. LTD. AND M/S NAMAN LAM PVT. LTD WERE FURNISHED. REGARDING THE FLOW OF FUNDS F ROM THE BANK ST ATEMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AMOUNTS HAVE IMMEDIATELY BEEN CREDITED BEFORE GIVING FUNDS TO YOUR COMP ANY. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT REGULAR BALANCE IS ONLY FEW THOUSANDS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ALL COMPANIES. FROM THE AVAILABLE RECORDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THESE COMPANIES ARE HARDLY INVOLVED IN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF ALL THE ABOVE COMPANIES ALONG WITH ID PROOF AND ITR, BALANCE - SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE LAST THREE YEARS FOR RECORDING OF THEIR STATEMENT. DATE FIXED WAS 21.01.2013, BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED. DOCUMENTS PRODUC ED VIDE LETTER DATED 21.01.2013 AND DATED 29.01.2013 HAVE SIMILAR ADDRESSES WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN VERIFIED AND FOUND TO BE IN CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE HAS AGAIN PROVIDED THE SAME ADDRESSES, EXCEPT THREE ADDRESSES, OF COMPANIES, VIDE LETTER D ATED 11.02.2013, ADDRESSES OF THREE COMPANIES ARE CHANGED AS UNDER: 1 SAFARI TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED, G - 10, BEST PLAZA, H - 8, BEHIND P.P. JEWELLERS, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, NEW DELHI 6,00,000/ - 2 FOCUS TRADIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, 25/14A, NO.14, KUNTI MARG, 60 FEET ROAD, VISHWAS NAGAR, SHAHDARA, NEW DELHI 8,00,000/ - 3 KABIR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED., A - 85, FIRST FLOOR, OFFICE NO.2, ST NO.15, MADHU VIHAR, NEW DELHI 10,00,000/ - 12. PHYSICAL INQUIRIES WERE MADE AT THE ABOVE ADDRESSES BY THE OFFICIALS OF REVENUE AND FOUND THAT THESE COMPANIES ARE NOT INEXISTENCE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. AT SAFARI TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED, S - 561, ROOM NO. 218, ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 8 BHAGWATI BUSINESS CENTRE, SCHOOL BLOCK, SHAKARPU R, NEW DELHI, A PERSON NAMED SH. S.K. SRIVASTAVA IS HAVING OFFICE AT THIS ADDRESS, HE HAS DENIED THAT SUCH COMPANY WAS EVER AT THIS ADDRESS. AT SOUTH GANESH NAGAR, MANDAWALI NEW DELHI, THE BUILDER WHO IS ALSO OWNER OF BUILDING STATED THAT THERE IS NO SUCH COMPANY SINCE 1980. SIMILARLY, THE ENQUIRIES OF OTHER COMPANIES REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: 1 NAMAN LAM PRIVATE LIMITED, MONITOR SPRINT ELEVATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KABIR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, ALL AT ROOM NO.204 21ST CENTURY BUSINESS CENTRE, D - 64, SHAKARP UR NEW DELHI LOCKED FOR MANY YEARS, LOCAL INQUIRY REVEAL THAT SUCH COMPANIES HAVE NEVER BEEN AT THIS ADDRESS. 2 VISIT INDIA VOYAGES PRIVATE LIMITED, 108, SHOPPING COMPLEX, VEER SAVARKAR BLOCK, SHAKARPUR, NEW DELHI THERE IS OFFICE OF M/S MAX BUPA. THEY HAVE DENIED EXISTENCE OF SUCH COMPANY. 3 ANUBHAV BUILDMART PRIVATE LIMITED, RACHITA BUILDEON PVT. LTD., DA/4, 106, DUA BUSINESS CENTRE, MAIN VIKAS MARG, SHAKARPUR DELHI THERE IS OFFICE OF M/S SUNLINE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS FOR 7 YEARS. SH. DESH RAJ BALI OF ABOVE HAS DENIED THAT SUCH COMPANY WAS EVER AT THIS ADDRESS. ALSO PROVIDED HIS VISITING CARD, HAVING SAME ADDRESS. 4 SAFARI TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED, G - 18, GARG TOWER, NETAJI SUBHASH NAGAR, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS SOME OTHER PERSON RESIDING WHO HAS DENIED HEARD OF SUCH COMPANY. 5 FOCUS TRADIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, YP - 43 B, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS SOME OTHER PERSON RESIDING WHO HAS DENIED HEARD OF SUCH COMPANY. 6 SAFARI TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED, G - 10, BEST PLAZA, H - 8, BEHIND P.P. JEWELLERS, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, NEW DELHI BUILDING IS LOCKED. BUILDING GUARD AND NEARBY TOLD THAT THEY HAVE NEVER HEARD SUCH COMPANY S NAME. 7 FOCUS TRADIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, 25/14A, NO.14, KUNTI MARG, 60 FEET ROAD, VISHWAS NAGAR, SHAHDARA, NEW DELHI INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM OWNER OF THE BUILDING AND NEARBY SHOPKEEPERS. NO SUCH COMPANY OFFICE HAVE BEEN IN BUILDING. 8 KABIR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED., A - 85, FIRST FLOOR, OFFICE NO.2, ST NO. 15, MADHU VIHAR, NEW DELHI SH. ANIL OWNER OF M/S DRISHYA EYE CARE SINCE 2009 TOLD THAT HE HAS NOT HEARD OF SUCH COMPANY. 13. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONVEYED ABOUT THE OUTCOME OF THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED REGARDING EACH OF ADDRESSES AND AGAIN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SAID PARTIES. LETTERS U/S 133(6) WERE ALSO SENT THROUGH SPEED POST AND THE LETTERS RETURNED WITH THE REMARK NO SU CH COMPANY . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT ADDUCED ANY DOCU MENT TO SHOW THAT ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 9 COMPANIES ARE EXISTING AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE ADDRESSES OF AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES HAVE ALSO NOT MADE AVAILABLE AND THE ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS AVAILABLE ON ROC ARE FOUND B OGUS. THUS, GENUINENESS OF THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. BALANCE SHEET OF T HE COMPANIES ALSO DOES NOT SHOW M/S SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED THEIR ASSET SIDE OR IN THE LIST OF INVESTMENT. CREDIT WORTHIN ESS OF COMPANIES IS ALSO NOT PROVED FROM THE INCOME SHOWN BY THESE COMPANIES. PARTNERS OF THE FIRM HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN PRODUCED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT NEITHER ASSESSEE COULD PROVIDE ANY ADDRESS OF ALL THE COMPANIES FROM WHOM SHARE APPLICATION MONE Y HAS BEEN RECEIVED, SO THAT SUMMONS U/S 131 CAN BE ISSUED NOR HAS BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF ABOVE COMPANIES. THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE REVENUE REVEALED THAT ADDRESS 204 21 ST CENTURY BUSINESS CENTRE D - 64, SHAKARPURE, NEW DELHI IS FOUND CLOSED FOR MANY YEARS. CARE TAKER OF THE BUILDING HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THIS WAS NEVER LET OUT TO M/S NAMAN LAM PRIVATE LIMITED, SPRINT ELEVALORS PRIVATE LIMITED AND KABIR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED. THESE COMPANIES WERE NEVER IN EXIS TENCE AT THE SAID A DDRESS. THE ADDRESS OF ON M/S KABIR ENTERPRISES WAS FURNISHED THAT WAS ALSO FOUND WRONG. IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS NO N EED TO KEEP SUCH REGISTER. THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENT REGISTER TO SHOW THAT ABOVE SHAREHO LDERS COMPANIES HAVE EVER ATTENDED ANY MEETINGS OF SHAREHOLDERS. FURTHER, NO INCOME OR DIVIDEND OR ANY OTHER BENEFITS HAVE BEEN GIVEN ON RECORD TO THESE ALLEGED INVESTOR COMPANIES IN LIEU OF SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT MADE BY T HEM. THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED CONFI RMATIONS AND IT WAS OBSERVED THAT MANY OF THE DIRECTORS WHOSE SIGNATURES ARE APPEARING ON THE CONFIRMATION HAVE ALREADY BEEN RESIGNED. DETAILS OF SIGNATURE APPEARING ON SO CALLED CONFIRMATION LETTER AS ON 16.03.2013 AND DIRECTORS AS PER ROC ARE AS UNDER ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 10 NAME OF THE COMPANY SIGNATURE APPEARING ON CONFIRMATION LETTER STATUS OF THOSE DIRECTOR AND DIRECTOR OF COMPANY AS ON DATE, AS ON PAPER/ROC - ANUBHAV BUILDMART PVT. LTD. SH. DUSHYAN AGRAWAL AS PER FORM 32 FILED ON ROC SH. DUSHYAN AGRAWAL HAS RESIGNED ON 10.03.2012 AND AMIT AGRAWAL IS APPOINTED IN PLACE W.E.F. 10.03.2012 VISIT INDIA VOYAGES PVT. LTD. SH. S. K. GARG SH. S.K. GARG HAS ALREADY RESIGNED LETTER ENCLOSED BELOW AS PER PAPER FILED IN ROC. SH. HEMANT HAS BEEN APPOINTED IN PLACE W.E.F. 11.04.2012. MONITOR SPRINT ELEVATORS (P) LTD. SH. DUSHYAN AGRAWAL AS PER FORM 32 FILED ON ROC SH. DUSHYANT AGRAWAL HAS RESIGNED ON 13.03.2012 AND SH. HEMANT IS APPOINTED IN PLACE W.E.F. 13.03.2012 14. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH CURRENT ADDRESSES OF THE COMPANIES, OWING TO WHICH SUMMONS U/S 131 COULD NOT BE ISSUED, THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) HAVE COME BACK UNSERVED, THE FILED ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED DID NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE CO MPANIES , THEIR IDENTITY NOT ESTABLISHED , AND FAILED TO PRODUCE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF COMPANY MADE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 15. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO PLACED RE LIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: - (SEE: CIT V, DURGA PRASAD MORE [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC), AT PAGES 545, 547). THIS RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER THE APPARENT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS THE REAL. AS LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT THE APPARENT MUST BE CONSIDERED THE REAL UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT THE REAL AND THAT THE TAXING AUTHORI TIES ARE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY AND THE MATTER HAS TO BE CONSIDERED BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES. IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, WEST BENGAL II V. DURGA PRASAD MORE, (1971) 82 ITR 540 HEGDE J. SPEAKING FOR THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AS UNDE : - ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 11 NOW WE SHALL PROCEED TO EXAMINE THE VALIDITY OF THOSE GROUNDS THAT APPEALED TO THE L EARNED JUDGES. IT IS TRUE THAT THE APPARENT MUST BE CONSIDERED REAL UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT THE REAL. IN A CASE OF THE PRESENT KIND A PARTY WHO RELIES ON A RECITAL IN A DEED HAS TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THOSE RECITALS, OTHERWISE IT WILL BE VERY EASY TO MAKE SELF - SERVING STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS EITHER EXECUTED OR TAKEN BY A PARTY AND RELY ON THOSE RECITALS. IF ALL THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO WANTS TO EVADE TAX IS TO HAVE SOME RECITALS MADE IN A DOCUMENT EITHER E XECUTED BY HIM OR EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR THEN THE DOOR WILL BE LEFT WIDE OPEN TO EVADE TAX. A LITTLE PROBING WAS SUFFICIENT IN THE PRESENT CASE TO SHOW THAT THE APPARENT WAS NOT THE REAL. THE TAXING AU THORITIES WERE - NOT REQUIRED TO PUT ON BLINKERS WHILE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. THEY WERE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY OF THE RECITALS MADE IN THOSE DOCUMENTS. 16. THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING ON TH E JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF EMPIRE BUILDTECH PVT. LTD. 366 ITR 110 AND NOVA PROMOTERS AND FINLEASE PVT. LTD. OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. 17. BEFORE US, DURING THE HEARING, THE LD. AR FILED THE MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF EXTRA ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING OF THE ASSESSEE, ITR OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES, THE CONFIRMATIONS, THE ROC RECORD, P&L AND BALANCE SHEET OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES, COPIES OF THE APPLICATION OF THE EQUITY SHARES. IT WAS ARGUED THAT ALL THE EVIDENCES TO PROVE IDENTITY, GENUINEN ESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES WHICH HAS SUMMARILY REJECTED WITHOUT GIVING DUE CONSIDERATION. HE RELIED ON THE DOCUMENTS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK SERIAL NUMBER UPTO 331. ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 12 18. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR, SH. N. K. BANSAL S TRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE TOOK US THROUGH VARIOUS ASPECT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS AND ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE RATIONALE TO THE LD. CIT (A) IN CONFIRMING THE APPEAL. HE HAS FILED HIS ARGUMENTS IN THE FORM OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. PCIT VS NRA IRON & STEEL (P.) LTD. [ 2019 ] 103 TAXMANN.COM 48 (SC) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE SUPREME COURT REVERSE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES HOLDING THAT WHERE THERE WAS FAILURE OF ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH CREDIT WORTHINESS OF INVESTOR COMPANIES, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER MAKING ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 68 FOR SHARE CAPITAL / PREMIUM RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY. MERELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FILED ALL PRIMARY EVIDENCE, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT ONUS ON ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH CREDIT WORTHINESS OF INVESTOR COMPANIES STOOD DISCHARGED 2. PCIT VS NDR PROMOTERS PVT LTD [2019] 102 TAXMANN.COM 182 (DELHI)/[2019] 261 TAXMAN 270 (DELHI)/[2019] 410 ITR 379 (DELHI)) WHERE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS TO ASSESSEE'S INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT RECEIVED AS SHARE CAPITAL FROM SEVERAL COMPANIES, IN VIEW OF FACT THAT ALL OF THESE COMPANIES WERE MAINTAINED BY ONE PERSO N WHO WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES THROUGH PAPER COMPANIES AND ALL SUCH COMPANIES WERE LOCATED AT SAME ADDRESS, IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS JUSTIFIED 3. ITO VS SYNERGY FINLEASE PVT. LTD (ITA NO.4778/DEL/2013) WHERE HON BLE ITAT DELHI HELD THAT WHERE INVESTOR OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAD NOMINAL INCOME AND CHEQUES HAD BEEN RECEIVED JUST BEFORE ISSUE OF CHEQUES FOR SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, CREDITWORTHINESS WAS NOT PROVED AND ADDITION U/S 68 WAS SUSTAINED. ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 13 4. PREM CASTINGS (P.) LTD. VS CIT [201 7] 88 TAXMANN.COM 189 (ALLAHABAD) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HELD THAT ADDITIONS U/S 68 WARRANT BEING SUSTAINED WHERE THE IDENTITIES & CREDITWORTHINESS OF INVESTORS IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE & ARE A LSO PROVED INCORRECT BY THE DEPARTMENT'S ASSESSEE INFORMATION SYSTEM. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, ASSESSEE CANNOT RESIST THE ADDITIONS ON GROUNDS THAT IT DID NOT HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE RELEVANT WITNESSES. AN ASSESSEE COMPANY CANNOT HIDE BEHIND THE SH ELL OF A CORPORATE ENTITY TO FEIGN IGNORANCE REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO INVESTS IN ITS SHARE CAPITAL. PREM CA STINGS (P.) LTD. VS CIT 2018 - TIO L - 274 - SC - IT (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE SUPREME COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS: WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS PETITION. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. CIT VS MAF ACADEMY (P.) LTD (361 ITR 258) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE, A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, SOLD ITS SHARES TO UNRELATED PARTIES A T A HUGE PREMIUM AND THEREUPON WITHIN SHORT SPAN OF TIME THOSE SHARES WERE PURCHASED BACK EVEN AT A LOSS, SHARE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION WERE TO BE REGARDED AS BOGUS AND, THUS, AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SAID TRANSACTIONS WAS TO BE ADDED TO ASSESEE'S TAXABLE INC OME UNDER SECTION 68 I T WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 53. IN CONTRAST TO THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND IN THE FACTUAL MATRIX, WE HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE INITIAL ONUS A ND HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THOUGH, ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 14 IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, NONE OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS, REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSEE RESPONDENT, ARE APPLICABLE IN THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY US HEREINABOVE. 54. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS SATISFACTORILY AND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE JUSTIFIED AND S USTAINABLE. 6. CIT VS NAVODAYA CASTLE PVT LTD T20141 367 ITR 306 (DEL) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT ACCEPTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS AND THE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF THE SIX SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES AND ALS O THAT AS PER THE INFORMATION AND DETAILS COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE CONCERNED BANK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE GENUINE CONCERNS ABOUT IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHAREHOLDERS AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TIONS. '20. NOW, WHEN WE GO TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS MERELY REPRODUCED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) AND UPHELD THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION. IN FACT, THEY SUBSTANTIALLY RELI ED UPON AND QUOTED THE DECISION OF ITS CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF MAF ACADEMY P. LTD., A DECISION WHICH HAS BEEN OVERTURNED BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT, VIDE ITS JUDGMENT IN CIT V. MAF ACADEMY P. LTD. [2014] 206 DLT 277 ; [2014] 361 ITR 258 (DELHI)). IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE DIRECTORS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF THE SIX SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES AND ALSO THE FACT THAT AS PER THE INFORMATION AND DETAILS COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE CONCERNED BANK , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE GENUINE CONCERNS ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 15 ABOUT IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHAREHOLDERS AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. 21. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE FEEL THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES AN ORDER OF REMIT TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID CASE LAW.' NAVODAVA CASTLE PVT LTD VS CIT ([2015] 56 TAXMANN.COM 18 (SC)/[2015] 230 TAXMAN 268 (SC)) (COPY ENCLOSED) SLP OF ASSESSEE DISMISSED BY HON BLE SUPREME COURT 7. KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING (P.) LTD. VS DCIT [2018] 96 TAXMANN.COM 255 (SC) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE ASSESSEE - COMPANY RECEIVED CERTAIN AMOUNT AS SHARE CAPITAL FROM VARIOUS SHAREHOLDERS, IN VIEW OF FACT THAT SUMMONS TO SHAREHOLDERS UNDER SECTION 131 COULD NOT BE S ERVED AS ADDRESSES WERE NOT AVAILABLE, AND, MOREOVER, THOSE SHAREHOLDERS WERE FIRST TIME ASSESSEES AND WERE NOT EARNING ENOUGH INCOME TO MAKE DEPOSITS IN QUESTION, ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 WAS TO BE CONFIRMED; SLP DISMISSED . KON ARK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING (P.) LTD. VS DCIT [2018] 90 TAXMANN.COM 56 (BOMBAY) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE - COMPANY RECEIVED CERTAIN AMOUNT AS SHARE CAPITAL FROM VARIOUS SHAREHOLDERS, IN VIEW OF FACT THAT SUMMONS SERVED TO SHAREHOLDERS UNDER SECTION 131 WERE UNSERVED WITH REMARK THAT ADDRESSEES WERE NOT AVAILABLE, AND, MOREOVER, THOSE SHAREHOLDERS WERE FIRST TIME ASSESSEES AND WERE NOT EARNING ENOUGH INCOME TO MAKE DEPOSITS IN QUESTION, IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY A O UNDER SEC. 68, WAS TO BE CONFIRMED . ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 16 8. PRATHAM TELECOM IND IA PVT LTD VS PCIT (2018 - TIO L - 1983 - HC - MUM - IT) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT MERE PRODUCTION OF PAN NUMBERS & BANK STATEMENTS IS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO DISCHARGE THE BURD EN ON TAXPAYER TO ESCAPE THE REALMS OF SECTION 68 . 9. J J DEVE LOPMENT PVT LTD VS CIT (2018 - TIO L - 395 - SC - IT) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PROVIDE A CONVINCING EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE CASH CREDIT BEF ORE THE AO AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ITAT BEING A FACT FINDING BODY, THE SAME CANNOT BE DISPUTED FURTHER. APEX COURT DISMISSED THE SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSED 10. DRB EXPORTS (P.) LTD. VS CIT [ 2018 ] 93 TAXMANN.COM 490 (CALCUTTA) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE AO MADE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 IN RESPECT OF INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL OF ASSESSEE - COMPANY, IN VIEW OF FACT THAT ADDRESSES OF MOST OF PURPORTED SHAREHOLDERS WERE IDENTICAL AND THEY COULD NOT BE TRACED OUT DESPITE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 131, TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING IMPUGNED ADDITION . 11. CIT VS NIPUN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (P.) LTD (30 TAXMANN.COM 292, 214 TAXMAN 429, 350 ITR 407, 256 CTR 34) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES TO PAY SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, AMOUNT SO RECEIVED WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 68. IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 12. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOW S THAT IT HAS GONE ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 17 AND HAS HELD THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE DOCUMENTS, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN OBSER VED THAT THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING CANNOT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE'S OWN MONIES WERE BROUGHT BACK IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. AS NOTED IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPH, IT IS NOT THE BURDEN OF THE AO TO PROVE THAT CONNECTION. THE RE HAS BEEN NO EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN ANY DETAIL IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE NOT ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS, BUT ALSO THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENUINE NESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL TO SCRATCH THE SURFACE AND PROBE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SOME DEPTH, IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES IN ORDER TO SEE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS UNDER SECTION 68. WITH RESPECT, IT APPEARS TO US THAT THERE HAS ONLY BEEN A MECHANICAL REFERENCE TO THE CASE - LAW ON THE SUBJECT WITHOUT ANY SERIOUS APPRAISAL OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. W E, THEREFORE, ANSWER THE SUBSTANT IAL QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED BY US IN THE NEGATIVE, IN FAVOUR O F THE REVE NUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 12. CIT VS NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE (P) LTD (18 TAXMANN.COM 217, 206 TAXMAN 207, 342 ITR 169 , 252 CTR 187) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDERS IN GARB OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, WAS TO BE ADDED TO ITS TAXABLE INCOME UNDER SECTION 68. IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 41. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, NOT ONLY DID THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOW THE LINK BETWEEN THE ENTRY PROVIDERS AND THE ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 18 ASSESSEE - COMPANY, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO PROVIDED THE STATEMENTS OF MUKESH GUPTA AND RAJAN JASSAL TO THE ASSESS EE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. OUT OF THE 22 COMPANIES WHOSE NAMES FIGURED IN THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THEM TO THE INVESTIGATION WING, 15 COMPANIES HAD PROVIDED THE SO - CALLED 'SHARE SUBSCRIPTION MONIES' TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS THUS SPECIFIC INVOLVEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY IN THE MODUS OPERANDI FOLLOWED BY MUKESH GUPTA AND RAJAN JASSAL. THUS, ON CRUCIAL FACTUAL ASPECTS THE PRESENT CASE STANDS ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FOOTING FROM THE CASE OF OASIS HOSPITALITIES (P.) LTD. (SUPRA). 42. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMING THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,18,50,000 MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITION OF RS. 2,96,250. WE ACCORDINGLY ANSWER THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW IN THE NEGATIVE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE SHALL PAY COSTS WHICH WE ASSESS AT RS. 30,000/ - . 13. CIT VS ULTRA MODERN EXPOR TS (P.) LTD (40 TAXMANN.COM 458, 220 TAXMAN 165) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN GENUINENESS OF ASSESSEE'S CLAIM RELATING TO RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, ASSESSING OFFICER SENT NOTICES TO SHARE APPLICANTS WHICH RETURNED UNSERVED, HOWEVER, ASSESSEE STILL MANAGED TO SECUR E DOCUMENTS SUCH AS THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS AS WELL AS BANK ACCOUNT PARTICULARS, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCE AND ADDING AMOUNT IN QUESTION TO ASSESSEE'S TAXABLE INCOME UNDER SECTION 68. IT WAS HELD A S FOLLOWS: 9. AS NOTICED PREVIOUSLY, THE CIT (A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE BASIC ONUS WHICH WAS CAST UPON IT AFTER ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 19 CONSIDERING THE RULING IN LOVELY EXPORTS (P.) LTD. 'S CASE (SUPRA). THE MATERIAL AND THE RECORDS IN THIS CASE SHOW THAT NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 5 OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. THE PARTICULARS OF RETURNS MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN PARAGRAPH 3.4 BY THE AO IN THIS CASE WOULD SHOW THAT THE SAID PARTIES/APPLICANTS HAD DISCLOSED VERY MEAGER INCOME. THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT BEFORE ISSUING CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE, HUGE AMOUNTS WERE TRANSFERRED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF SAID SHARE APPLICANTS. THIS DISCUSSION ITSELF WOULD REVEAL THAT EVEN THOUGH THE SHARE APPLICANTS COULD NOT BE AC CESSED THROUGH NOTICES, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN A POSITION TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS FROM THEM. WHILE THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT IN LOVELY EXPORTS (P.) LTD. (SUPRA), THE COURT INDICATED THE RULE OF 'SHIFTING ONUS' I.E. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE REVENUE TO PROVE THA T SECTION 68 COULD BE INVOKED ONCE THE BASIC BURDEN STOOD DISCHARGED BY FURNISHING RELEVANT AND MATERIAL PARTICULARS, AT THE SAME TIME, THAT JUDGMENT CANNOT BE SAID TO LIMIT THE INFERENCES THAT CAN BE LOGICALLY AND LEGITIMATELY DRAWN BY THE REVENUE IN THE NATURAL COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE INFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE FURNISHES WOULD HAVE TO BE CREDIBLE AND AT THE SAME TIME VERIFIABLE. IN THIS CASE, 5 SHARE APPLICANTS COULD NOT BE SERVED AS THE NOTICES WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. IN THE BACKDROP OF THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, THE ASSESSEE'S ABILITY TO SECURE DOCUMENTS SUCH AS INCOME TAX RETURNS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS WELL AS BANK ACCOUNT PARTICULARS WOULD ITSELF GIVE RISE TO A CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH THE AO IN THIS CASE PROCEEDED TO DRAW INFERENCES FROM. HAVING RE GARD TO THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, I.E., THAT THE ASSESSEE COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS AND IMMEDIATELY SOUGHT TO INFUSE SHARE CAPITAL AT A PREMIUM RANGING BETWEEN RS. 90 - 190 PER SHARE AND WAS ABLE TO GARNER A COLOSSAL AMOUNT OF RS. 4.34 CRORES, THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 20 (APPEALS) AND THE IT AT FELL INTO ERROR IN HOLDING THAT AO COULD NOT HAVE ADDED BACK THE SAID AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 68. THE QUESTION OF LAW CONSEQUENTLY IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE RE VENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 14. CIT VS FR OSTA IR (P.) LTD (26 TAXMANN.COM 11, 210 TAXMAN 221) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE DETAILS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE ABOUT SHARE APPLICANTS WERE INCORRECT, ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 WAS PROPER. IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 12 . THE AP PLICATION OF THE RATIO OF EVERY DECISION BY A QUASI - JUDICIAL BODY LIKE THE IT AT HAS TO BE NUANCED, AND CONTEXTUAL. THUS, WHILE THE FINDINGS IN DIVINE LEASING, OASIS INTERNATIONAL OR EVEN LOVELY EXPORTS MIGHT BE PRECEDED BY A GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE CORR ECT APPROACH TO BE ADOPTED BY THE AO, IN A GIVEN CASE WHERE ADDITIONS ARE SOUGHT TO BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEYS NOT FOUND TO BE GENUINE, THE BASIC FACTS OF THE CASE CANNOT BE LOST SIGHT OF. ON A PROPER APPLICATION OF THE RATIO IN OASIS - AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE DIVISION BENCH RULING IN CIT V. NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE (P) LTD [2012] 206 TAXMAN 207/ 18 TAXMANN.COM 217 (DELHI) IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AO TOOK INTO ACCOUNT - IF WE MAY SAY SO, IN EXHAUSTIVE DETAIL, AFTER A PAINSTAKING EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS AFTER TWO OR THREE LAYERS OF SCRUTINY - ALL THE MATERIALS AND HELD THAT THE CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATIONS WERE NOT BASED ON GENUINE TRANSACTIONS. THE CIT (A) UPHELD THAT ORDER, AFTER CALLING F OR A REMAND REPORT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS, APPEARS TO BE BASED ON A SUPERFICIAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW, AND AN UNINFORMED ONE ABOUT THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E. ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 21 13 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASONS, THE QUESTIONS OF LAW IN THESE APPEALS ARE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE RESTORED. THE APPEALS ARE TO SUCCEED AND ARE THEREFORE ALLOWED. 15 . CIT VS N R PORTFOLIO PVT LTD [2014] 42 TAXMANN.COM 339 (DELHI)/[2014] 222 TAXMAN 157 (DELHI )(MAG)/[2014] 264 CTR 258 (DELHI) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT IF AO DOUBTS THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE, THE ONUS SHIFTS ON ASSESSEE TO FURTHER SUBSTANTIATE THE FACTS OR PRODUCE THE SHARE APPLICANT IN PROCEEDING. IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 30. WHAT WE PERCEIVE AND REGARD AS CORRECT POSITION OF LAW IS THAT THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE CONVINCED ABOUT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTION. THE ONUS TO PROVE THE THREE FACTUM IS ON THE ASSESSEE AS THE FACTS ARE WITHIN THE ASSESSEE'S KNOWLEDGE. MERE PRODUCTION OF INCORPORATION DETAILS, PAN NOS. OR THE FACT THAT THIRD PERSONS OR COMPANY HAD FILED INCOME TAX DETAILS IN CASE OF A PRIVATE L IMITED COMPANY MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT WHEN SURROUNDING AND ATTENDING FACTS PREDICATE A COVER UP. THESE FACTS INDICATE AND REFLECT PROPER PAPER WORK OR DOCUMENTATION BUT GENUINENESS, CREDITWORTHINESS, IDENTITY ARE DEEPER AND OBTRUSIVE. COMPANIES NO DOUBT ARE ARTIFICIAL OR JURISTIC PERSONS BUT THEY ARE SOULLESS AND ARE DEPENDENT UPON THE INDIVIDUALS BEHIND THEM WHO RUN AND MANAGE THE SAID COMPANIES. IT IS THE PERSONS BEHIND THE COMPANY WHO TAKE THE DECISIONS, CONTROLS AND MANAGE THEM. 16 . CIT VS EMPIRE BUILTE CH (P.) LTD (366 ITR 110) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT U/S 68 IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR ASSESSEE TO MERELY DISCLOSE ADDRESS AND IDENTITIES OF SHAREHOLDERS; IT HAS TO SHOW GENUINENESS OF SUCH INDIVIDUALS OR ENTITIES. ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 22 17. CIT VS F OCUS EXPORTS (P.) LTD (51 TAXMANN.COM 46 (DELHI)/[2015] 228 TAXMAN 88) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE ADDRESS AND PAN OF CERTAIN SHARE APPLICANTS WHE REAS IN CASE OF SOME OF SHARE APPLICANTS, THERE WERE TRANSACTIONS OF DEPOSITS AND IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWALS OF MONEY FROM BANK, IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 WAS TO BE CONFIRMED . 1 8. PCIT VS BIKRAM SINGH [2017] 85 TAXMANN.COM 104 (DELHI)/[2017] 250 TAXMAN 273 (DELHI / [2017] 399 ITR 407 (DELHI) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT EVEN IF A TRANSACTION OF LOAN IS MADE THROUGH CHEQUE, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED TO BE GENUINE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT, SECURITY AND INTEREST PAYMENT. MERE SUBMISSION OF PAN CARD OF CREDITOR DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE AUTHENTICITY OF A HUGE LOAN TRANSACTION PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ITR DOES NOT INSPIRE SUCH CONFIDENCE. MERE SUBMISSION OF ID PROOF AND THE FACT THAT THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNEL, DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. LOAN ENTRIES ARE GENERALLY MASKED TO PUMP IN BLACK MONEY INTO BANKING CHANNELS AND SUCH PRACTICES CONTINUE TO PLAGUE INDIAN ECONOMY . 1 9. RICK LUNSFORD TRADE & INVESTMENT LTD VS CIT T20161 385 IT R 399 (CAL) (COPY ENCLOSED) THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR BANK ACCOUNTS OR SHAREHOLDERS' REGISTER. EIGHT OUT OF FIFTY SIX PERSONS FROM SHAREHOLDERS LIST PROVIDED BY ASSESSEE DENIED SUBSCRIPTION. REMAINING NOTICES RETURNED WITH ENDORSEME NT NOT KNOWN . HON BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS RIGHTLY TREATED AS ASSESSEE S INCOME . ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 23 20. RICK LUNSFORD TRADE & INVESTMENT LTD VS CIT [2016 - TIOL - 207 - SC - IT] (SUPREME COURT) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON BLE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED SLP UPHOLDING THAT IT IS OPEN TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SHARE CAPITAL U/S 68, WHERE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FAILED TO SHOW GENUINENESS OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS. 19. HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 20. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO GIVE THE BASIC DETAILS LIKE THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE APPLICANT COMPANIES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ADDRESSES GIVEN INITIALLY AND SUBSEQUENTLY HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE BOGUS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED DO CUMENTATION LIKE ITR OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES, THE CONFIRMATIONS, THE ROC RECORD, P&L AND BALANCE SHEET OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES, COPIES OF THE APPLICATION OF THE EQUITY SHARES WHICH CANNOT BE PRIMARILY TAKEN AS SACROSANCT WHEN WEIGHED AGAI NST THE CONCRETE EVIDENCES COLLECTED AND CONFRONTED BY THE REVENUE TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE MAKING THE ADDITION. THE ADDRESSES HAVE BEEN PROVED WRONG, THE NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT HAVE COME BACK UNSERVED, CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE DIRECTORS WAS NOT PROVIDE D. THERE HAS BEEN CHANGE OF DIRECTORS AND A SET OF PERSONS TAKEN AS DIRECTORS AND DIFFERENT COMPANIES. APPROXIMATELY, 15 CONCERNS ARE FLOATED OR TAKEN OVER BY A SET OF PERSONS HAVING SAME ADDRESSES AND COMMON DIRECTORS/PROPRIETORS AS BELOW: ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 24 S. NO. NAM E OF COMPANIES OWNER'S/DIRECTOR 1 RACHITA BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED DA/4,106, DUA BUSINESS CENTRE, MAIN VIKAS MARG, SHAKARPUR DELHI ANIL AGRAWAL SANJAY AGRAWAL 2 KABIR ENTERPRISES ROOM NO. - 204, 21ST CENTURY BUSINESS CENTRE, D - 64, SHAKARPUR, NEW DELHI ANIL AGRAWAL RAJEEV KUMAR BANSAL 3 ANUBHAV BUIIDMART PRIVATE LIMITED DA/4,106, DUA BUSINESS CENTRE, MAIN VIKAS MARG, SHAKARPUR DELHI RAJEEV KUMAR BANSAL DUSHYANT AGARWAL 4 FOCUS TRADIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED D - LLL, SOUTH GANESH NAGAR, MANDAWALI, NEW DELHI SUMIT KUMAR VERMA LOKESH GARG 5 MONITOR SPRINT ELEVATORS PRIVATE LIMITED. DA/4,106, DPA BUSINESS CENTER, MAIN VIKAS MARG, SHAKARPUR, NEW DELHI ANIL AGRAWAL DUSHYANT AGARWAL 6 NAMAN LAM PRIVATE LIMITED ROOM NO.204 D - 64 21ST CENTURY BUSINESS CENTRE SHAKARPUR DELHI RAJEEV KUMAR BANSAL DUSHYANT AGARWAL 7 SAFARI TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED S - 556, 2ND FLOOR SCHOOL BLOCK, SHAKARPUR, NEW DELHI YOGENDRA KUMAR VINOD SHARMA 8 VISIT INDIA VOYAGES PRIVATE LIMITED 108, M J SHOPPING CENTRE VEER SAVARKAR BLOCK, SHAKARPUR NEW DELHI ANIL AGRAWAL, MADHUKAR DUBEY SURENDRA KUMAR GARG, 9 TRUE WAY NETWORK & MARKETING 206, M J SHOPPING CENTRE, 3,VEER SAVARKAR BLOCK, SHAKARPUR, NEW DELHI PROP. AKHILESH SHARMA 10 THAKURJI SALES CORPORATION, 202, 23, VEER SAVARKAR BLOCK, SHAKAPUR, DELHI PROP. MADHUKAR DUBEY 11 BR GUPTA & CO. PVT. LTD., 202, 23, VEER SAVARKAR BLOCK, SHAKAPUR, DELHI AND 108, M J SHOPPING CENTRE, VEER SAVARKAR BLOCK, SHAKAPUR, DELHI ANIL AGRAWAL RAJEEV KUMAR BANSAL 12 HARSHIT TEXTILES, 301, 23, VEER SAVARKAR BLOCK, SHAKAPUR, DELHI PROP.MADHUKAR DUBEY 13 SONA ELECTRICAL SERVICES PVT.LTD 202 ,23, VEER SAVARKAR BLOCK, DELHI - 110092 MADHUKAR DUBEY 14 J K SALES CORPORATION 301 23 VEER SAVARKAR BLOCK, DELHI MAHUKAR DUBEY 15 ACCORD S ALES & TRADEX PVT. LTD. YOGENDRA KUMAR D - LLL, SOUTH GANESH NAGAR, MANDAWALI, NEW DELHI VINOD SHARMA ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 25 21. FURTHER, FROM THE STUDY OF THE BANK STATEMENT, IT CAN BE FOUND THAT M/S HARSHIT TEXTILES, M/S TRUE WAY NETWORK & MARKETING, M/S THAKURJI SALES CORPORATION, M/S BR GUPTA & CO. PVT. LTD., AND M/S HARSHIT TEXTILE HAVE BEEN USED TO DEPOSIT CASH AND THE SAME HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN TRANSFERRED TO OTHER ACCOUNTS ON ALMOST SAME DATE TO PROVIDE ENTRIES. TRAIL OF TRANSACTION FOR PROVIDING ENTRY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHE D BY T HE WAY OF FOLLOWING CHART : CASH RS.9,00,000/ - 12.11.2009 TRUE WAY NETWORK & MKG KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK 900000 13.11.2009 VISIT INDIA VOY GES PVT. LTD. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK 1400000 13.11.2009 SINGHAL SUNRIS E CASH RS.2,00,000/ - 12.11.2009 B R GUPTA & CO PVT. LTD. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK 200000 13.11.2009 CASH 3,00,000 12.11.2009 THAKUR JI SALES CORPORATION KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK 300000 13.11.2009 25 LACS 28.10.2009 J K SALES CORPORATION ING VYSYA BANK, 800000 29.10 .2009 SONA ELECTRICAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. ING VYSYA BANK, 800000 29.10.2009 NAMAN LAM PVT. LTD. 800000 29.10.2009 SINGHAL SUNRI SE 4,00,000 30.11.2009 RAVI SALES CORPORATION SOUTH INDIAN BANK 0933 4172388 CASH 50,000 21.11.2009 CASH 50,000 30.11.2009 4,00,000 NAMAN LAM PVT. LTD. 500000 30.11.2009 SINGHAL SUNRI SE CASH 9,00,000 28.10.2009 HARSHIT TEXTILES, 1350 8630000087 900000 CASH 1,00,000 28.10.2009 RACHITA BUILDCON PVT. LTD. HDFC BANK 1000000 31.10.2009 SINGHAL SUNRI SE 1000000 30.10.2009 ELLOR A BUILDTECH PVT . LTD. LTD. SYND ICATE BANK 1000000 30.10.2009 ANUBHAV BUILDMART PVT. LTD. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK A/C NO.093200000365 1000000 31.10.2009 SINGHAL SUNRISE YES BANK CHANAKYA PURI 011 - 66569000 ACCO RD SALES & TRADEX PVT. LTD. A/C NO3883800000743 YES BANK, RAJORI GARDEN 6,00,015 19.11.2009 FOCUS TRADIMPEX PVT. LTD. YES BANK A/C NO.003083800001942 6,00,000 20.11.2009 SINGHAL SUNRISE DEPOSITED 20,00,000 ON 19.11.2009 AND TRANSFERRED TO FOUR CONCERNS ACCO RD SALES & TRADEX PVT. LTD. A/C NO.38838 00000743 YES BANK, RAJORI GARDEN 6,00,040 19.11.2009 SAFARI TRADEX PVT. LTD. YES BANK 003083800001942 6,00,000 20.11.2009 SINGHAL SUNRIS E 25 LACS 28.10.2009 J K SALES CORPORATION ING VYSYA BANK, SONA ELECTRICAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 631011000076 ING \ /YSYA BANK, PREET VIHAR 10,00,000 29.10.2009 MONITOR SPRINT ELEVATORS PRIVATE LIMITED. ING VYSYA BANK 634011001681 10,00,000 29.10.2009 SINGHAL SUNRIS E ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 26 27.11.2009 ANKAY ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK 10,00,000 27.11.2009 KABIR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK A/C NO.53205035447 10,00,000 27.11.2009 SINGHAL SUNRISE 22. FURTHER, THE REVENUE COULD PROVE THE LINKAGE OF VARIOUS ENTITIES TO THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES WHICH ARE AS BELOW: S. NO. COMPANY SHARE APPLICATION MONEY/SHARE HOLDERS ANUBHAV BUILDMART PVT. LTD. ANKAY ASSOCIATES PVT LTD. B.R GUPTA & COMPANY PVT. LTD. KABIR ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD ELLORA BUILDTECH PVT LTD MONITER SPRINT ELEVATORS PVT. LTD. NAMAN LAM PVT. LTD. PORTER BUILDCON PVT. LTD. RACHITA BUILDCON PVT. LTD. SEVEN HEAVEN INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. SLB FINLEASE PVT. LTD. SONA ELECTRICAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. SUN VISION ADVERTISING & MRKTNG PVT. LTD. VISIT INDIA VOYAGES PVT. LTD GREEN VALUE AGROFARM S PVT. LTD KABIR ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. S.L.B. FINLEASE PVT. LTD. SONA ELECTRICAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. SUNVISI ON ADVERTISING & MARKG PVT. LTD. ANKAY ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. MONITOR SPRINT ELEVATORS PVT. LTD. ANKAY ASSOCIATES PVT LTD. B.R GUPTA & COMPANY PVT. LTD. ELLORA BULLDTECH PVT LTD PORTER BUILDCON PVT. LTD. RACHITA BUILDCON PVT. LTD. AN UBHAV BUILDMART PRIVATE LIMITED NAMAN LAM PVT. LTD. PORTER BUILDCON PVT. LTD. ANUBHAV BUILDMART PRIVATE LIMITED, ELLORA BUILDTECH PVT. LTD. ANKAY ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED, BRGUPTA & CO. PRIVATE LIMITED, RACHAITA BUILDCON P RIVATE LIMITED, VISIT INDIA VOYAGES PVT. LTD. ANKAY ASSOCIATES PVT LTD. B.R GUPTA & COMPANY PVT. LTD. ELLORA BUILDTECH PVT LTD ORTER BUILDCON PVT. LTD. SLB FINLEASE PVT. LTD. THAKUR JI SALES CORPORATIO N 23. FURTHER, THE TURNOVER AND PROFITS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY DO NOT GIVE ANY CREDENCE TO THE INVESTMENTS DONE WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHILE THE REVENUE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD ALL THE EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT ITA NO . 3103 /DEL /2015 SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD. 27 THESE SHARE APPLICANT ENTITIES ARE IN FACT S HELL COMPANIES. ROTATION OF THE AMOUNT AMONGST THE INTERCONNECTED COMPANIES TO PROVIDE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TO EACH OTHER HAS BEEN CLEARLY UNRAVELED BY THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HEREBY HELD THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE PRIMARY ONUS TO PROVE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. HENCE, RELYING ON THE FACTS ENUMERATED ABOVE AND JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE REVENUE U/S 68 OF THE ACT I S HEREBY CONFIRMED. 24 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRO N OUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 /0 9 /2019). SD/ - SD/ - ( AMIT SHUKLA ) ( DR. B. R. R. KUMAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 18 /0 9 /2019 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR