The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda V. M/s Truform Techno Products Ltd., Baroda

ITA 329/AHD/2015

AI Insights

The case involves the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda (Appellant) vs. M/s. Truform Techno Products Ltd. (Respondent) concerning the Assessment Year 2010-11. The primary issue was the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertained to the share capital and share premium received by the assessee, and an unsecured loan received from M/s. Jeenma Business Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer had disallowed these amounts, deeming them non-genuine due to insufficient evidence of the investors' creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. However, the CIT(A) deleted these additions after a detailed examination of the evidence provided by the assessee, which included audited accounts, bank statements, and confirmations from the investors.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114197 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, Namaste Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, Adamine Construction (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT, Godavari Tie-up (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Rohtak Chain Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JBPL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 68; 132; 144; 143(3); 195; 208; 43; 72; 153

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda (Appellant) Vs M/s. Truform Techno Products Ltd., 105, Sunheri Premises, High Tension Road, Subhanpura, Baroda-390023 PAN: AAACT8617M (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Anil R. Shah, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 10-05-2023 Date of pronouncement : 26-07-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Revenue as against the appellate order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vadodara arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010- 11. ITA No. 329/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 I.T.A No. 329/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No ACIT Vs.M/s. Truform Techno Products Ltd. 2 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Flanged Pipes, Fittings, Flanges and Castings. For the Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessee filed its original Return of Income on 14-09-2010 declaring total income of Rs. 48,19,364/-. During the course of scrutiny assessment, the A.O. found that the assessee has introduced share capital of Rs. 17,00,000/- and Share Premium of Rs.90/- share amounting to Rs. 1,53,00,000/- during the Financial Year 2009-10. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of the Investors. The assessee furnished the details of the five investors as follows: Sr. No. Name and Address of the share holder & address PAN No. of share Total value of Share Application & Premium 1 Enkay Trafin Pvt. Ltd. 16, N S Road, Kotkata-700001 AAACE5682P 10000 10,00,000 2 Balram Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.23/1, Chhatawala gully, Kolkata-7000012 AACCB7057R 100000 1,00,00,000 3 Subhlabh Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd., 16, N S Road, 2 nd Floor, Kolkata AADCS8846A 25000 25,00,000 4 Compact Advertising & Credit Pvt. Ltd., 32/C/l, MLB Road, Howrah-711201 AABCC8465H 15000 15,00,000 5 J P Engineering Corporation Pvt. Ltd., AE-326, Salt Lake City, Ground Floor, Kolkata- 70064. AABCJ 2340L 20000 20,00,000 Total 170000 1,70,00,000 I.T.A No. 329/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No ACIT Vs.M/s. Truform Techno Products Ltd. 3 2.1. On verification of the same, the A.O. found that the Return of Income filed by the investors as under: Sr. No. Name of the share holder Return of Income Reserve and Surplus 1 Balram Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 1038 132301563 2 Subhlab Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. 41746 10859277 3 J.P. Engineering Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 93841 603317356 4 Compact Advertising and Credit Pvt. Ltd. 45924 170418555 5 Enkay Trafin Pvt. Ltd. 43136 14275408 2.2. Thus the Assessing Officer found the above investors are hardly showing any profit in the Return of Income. There is a complete absence of any material to suggest what wasthe justification of charging so much premium. In view of the same, the A.O. held that the assessee failed to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, therefore the share capital and Share Premium received of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- as share application money which is treated as non-genuine and disallowed the same u/s. 68 of the Act. 2.2. Similarly, the assessee received unsecured loan of Rs.1,00,82,664/- from M/s. Jeenma Business Pvt. Ltd. The assessee could only furnish PAN and details of transaction. As the assessee failed to furnish full address, confirmation, Copy of ITR along with Audited Report and Bank details in respect of the unsecured loan received from M/s. Jeenma Business Pvt. Ltd., the same is treated as non-genuine and disallowed u/s. 68 of the Act. I.T.A No. 329/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No ACIT Vs.M/s. Truform Techno Products Ltd. 4 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings called for a Remand Report from the Assessing Officer and Rejoinder from the assessee and deleted the addition made on account of share application money observing as follows: “.....4.3. I have considered the facts of the case, the AO's observations and remand reports and the submissions made by the appellant. So far as the 2nd and 3rd grounds of appeal in relation to share application money are concerned, the appellant had provided the details of the 5 share applicants as per its record before the Assessing Officer. The AO had also made enquiries through DDIT Investigation 1(2), Kolkata in relation to the share application made by these companies to the appellant. Out of these 5 companies, 4 companies namely Subhlabh Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd., J.P. Engineering Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Compact Advertising & Credit Pvt. Ltd. Cand Enkay Trafin Pvt. Ltd. were found existing at the given addresses. The Authorized Representative of these companies also appeared before the DDIT and confirmed the fact of depositing share application money with the appellant, the shares of the appellant company to these companies had also been issued during this financial year. The appellant has also submitted the copies of audited accounts and bank statements of these companies before the AO. Thus, once the share applicants were found to be existing companies and they also confirm the fact of making the share application and their audited accounts and bank statement were also submitted before the AO and DDIT Investigation 1(2), Kolkata, then no such addition of such share application money can be made in the hands of the appellant as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Namaste Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Hence, the additions made on these amounts are directed to be deleted. 4.3.1. Now coming to the share application made by M/s. Balaram Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., the appellant had submitted acknowledgement of its return of income which included PAN and address of this company, copy of audited annual accounts for FY 2010-11 in which the investments made in the equity shares of the appellant were reflected in the closing entries of the equity shares and copy of bank statements of this company which reflected the payments by this company to the appellant through banking channels. But, the AO has made addition of the share application money paid by this company on the ground that this company was not found existing at the given address when the enquiry was made through DDIT Investigation 1(2), Kolkata. The appellant has submitted a new address of this company as additional evidence during the course of the appellate proceedings which has been objected to by the AO. Hence, the admissibility of such additional evidence is required to be decided first. From the facts on record, it is seen that the appellant had informed the address of the company to the AO vide its letter dated 15.10.2012 as per its records. The AO got the enquiry done through DDIT Investigation 1(2), Kolkata vide commission issued on 06.03.2013. The enquiry report dated 26.3.2013 was submitted by the DDIT Investigation. After that, the AO had informed the appellant about non existence of this company vide order I.T.A No. 329/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No ACIT Vs.M/s. Truform Techno Products Ltd. 5 sheet entry dated 26.03.2013 and provided the appellant a time period of 2 days for giving such information. Thus, the time provided by the AO was not sufficient to found out the new address of this company by the appellant. Besides, as per the facts submitted by the appellant, this company had shifted its registered office from Kolkata to New Delhi w.e.f. 18.04.2012 i.e. on a date prior to the date on which the appellant had Informed the address to the AO. The appellant has submitted a copy of the order passed by the registrar of the companies, NCR-Delhi and Haryana informing the shifting of the registered office from one state to another. It is pertinent to note here that this office had asked the appellant to provide details of status of shares held by this 5 companies in the appellant company as on date. In response to this, the appellant had submitted that the shares held by M/s. Balaram Vinimay Pvt.Ltd. had been transferred to M/s. Enkay Trafin Pvt. Ltd. on 31.05.2010 itself. Thus, during the course of the assessment proceedings, this company was not holding any shares in the appellant company. Under such circumstances, the appellant's claim that it had provided the address as per its own record and hence, the fact that this company was not found to be existing on the given address should not be adversely looked into, particularly in view of the fact that the appellant had now submitted the evidence that this company had changed its address to New Delhi, is acceptable. Hence, the additional evidence filed by the appellant in regard to address of this share applicant is admitted. 4.3.1.1. Now coming to the addition made of the share application money provided by M/s. Balaram Vinimay Pvt.Ltd., the appellant has proved the existence of this company on the basis of documents. The appellant has also submitted a copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 16.09.2013 vide which M/s. Balaram Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. has been amalgamated with M/s. Minda Capital Ltd. The appellant has also submitted the copies of audited accounts of this appellant company and copies of bank statement of this appellant company which shows that share application money has been transferred to the appellant through banking channels. All these documents have been examined by the AO also. Under such circumstances, as per the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its decision in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in its decision in the case of Namaste Ltd.,(supra) and Shree Ram Multi Tech Ltd. 40 Taxmann.com 540 (Gujarat), this amount cannot be added as income of the appellant. Hence, the addition of this amount is also directed to be deleted.” 3.1. The Ld. CIT(A) also deleted the addition made on account of unsecured loan availed by the assessee observing as follows: “......4.4. The appellant had provided the PAN No. of M/s. Jeenma Business Pvt. Ltd. to the Assessing Officer, but, did not provide other documents such as confirmation from this creditors copies of accounts of this creditor etc. during the course of the assessment proceedings. From the PAN No., the details of this loan creditor were ascertainable. Now the appellant had submitted all such details during the course of the assessment proceedings. In this regard, the appellant's claim that since for getting the details sought by the AO in regard to this company, the appellant was dependent upon third party i.e. the loan creditor and hence, could not gather the documents during the course of the assessment proceedings is a plausible explanation. The appellant has submitted all such documents during the course of the appellate proceedings which have been forwarded to the AO, I.T.A No. 329/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No ACIT Vs.M/s. Truform Techno Products Ltd. 6 who has provided his comments. Under such circumstances, the additional evidence filed by the appellant is admissible and are accordingly admitted. 4.4.1. Now coming to the addition made by the AO, the appellant has submitted following documents in respect of M/s. Jeenma Business Pvt. Ltd., which have also been provided to the AO by this office for examination: i) Certificate of incorporation of the company ii) Acknowledgement of filing of return of income for AY 2010-11 iii) Assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata In this case of this company for AY 2010-11. iv) Ledger account of the appellant in the books of JBPL. v) Copy of confirmation of account of the appellant by JBPL. vi) Annual Accounts of JBPL of FY 2009-10. vii) Bank Statement of JBPL reflecting the payments made to the appellant. 4.4.2. The AO has also provided his comments after examination of these documents which has been reproduced above. Thus, the appellant has been able to prove the identity and genuineness of the transactions with this creditor. So far as creditworthiness of the creditor is concerned, the AO has stated that it is not having sufficient income during the AY 2010-11. The other submission of the AO is that as per the schedule of loans and advances, it is not established that the loan of 1 crore was advanced to the appellant. In this regard, the appellant has submitted that it has also submitted the ledger account of the appellant in the books of M/s. Jeenma Business Pvt. Ltd. and also the confirmation of the loan to the appellant from this creditor. The appellant's claim in this regard is correct. The confirmation given by this creditor clearly establishes that it has advanced this loan to the appellant. So far as creditworthiness of this creditor is concerned, the appellant has submitted that the net wealth of this creditor as per audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2010 was 13.71 crores which demonstrates its capacity to make the loan of the appellant. Besides this, the fact is that the return of income for AY 2010-11 of this creditor was scrutinized by its AO and the order u/s 143(3) has been passed. From the copy of this order, it is seen that very small additions has been made in this order and the return of income has been largely accepted by the AO. The AO of this creditor has also examined its books of account with all relevant documents including bills and vouchers, bank statement etc. Under such circumstances, the credit worthiness of this company cannot be doubted by the AO of the appellant. Thus, the appellant has been able to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Apex Therm Packaging (P) Ltd., 42 Taxmann.com 473 (Gujarat) and Dharmder Finance (P) Ltd., 43 Taxmann.com 395 (Gujarat). Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Jalan Timbers, 90 Taxman 298 (Gau). Hence, the addition made by the AO in this regard is directed to be deleted.” 4. Aggrieved against the same, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law, in deleting the addition of Rs.1,70,00,000/-, being disallowance on account of share capital and share premium account u/s. 68 of I.T.A No. 329/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No ACIT Vs.M/s. Truform Techno Products Ltd. 7 the I.T. Act, without appreciating that the assessee failed to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness transaction and genuineness of this 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law, in applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd. to the facts of the present case, though the present case is distinguishable from the case of Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd., in as much in the present case, the identity of share subscriber was not conclusively established on the basis of enquiries conducted by the A.O. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made on account of unsecured loan u/s. 68 of the Act, without appreciating that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim with documentary evidences, to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of this transaction. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in deciding the issues ignoring various judicial decisions including land mark judgment in the cases of Sumati Dayal Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540 and A Govindraj Mudaliar, 34 ITR 807, Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, 72 ITR 19. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. 5. Ld. Sr. D.R. Shri Rakesh Jha appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer and also submitted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable for the reason that as per the inquiries carried out by DDIT, Investigation Wing, Kolkatta that the subscribers of shares either available on the address given by the assessee nor failed to explain the transaction and also failed to produce the directors of the company for recording statement u/s. 132 of the Act. Thus the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction could not be established and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is to be sustained. 5.1. Similarly on the unsecured loan received from M/s. Jeenma Business Pvt. Ltd. which does not have sufficient income during the assessment year 2010-11 and also could not establish the loan I.T.A No. 329/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No ACIT Vs.M/s. Truform Techno Products Ltd. 8 of Rs. 1 crore was advanced to the assessee company. Therefore the addition made on that account is liable to be upheld. 6. Per contra, Ld. A.R. Shri Anil R. Shah appearing for the assessee submitted before us a Paper Book consisting of submissions and case laws as follows: 2. In the assessment proceeding the AO had stated that the Share Applicants who belonged to Calcutta were not available or if available have not produce details and information required and addition were made which is very strongly objected by the Respondent since companies who had Applied for shares has satisfied all necessary conditions for making investment in Shares and of Compliances as required u/s.68 were fully satisfied and supplied. Balram Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. PAN-AACCBT057R Paper Book Page 1) Memorandum & Articles of Association of Company 106 to 124 Incorporate on 22-3-2005. 2) Copy of Balance Sheet & P&L A/c. for A.Y.2010-11 2) 125 to 141 3) Form 18-Notice of change of situation of Regd. Office 142 & 143 Dated 18-7-2011. 4) Certificate of Registrar of Company for change of state 144 u/s.18(3) of Companies Act dated 18-4-2012. 5) Acknowledgement of Return of Income for A.Y.2008-09. 145 6) Order of Company Law Board, Kolkatta vs. 17(1) of 146 to 148 Company Act dated 18-4-2012 for change of Regd. Office From Calcutta to New Delhi. Compact Advertising & Credit Pvt.Ltd. PAN-AABCC8465H 1) Certificate of Registration of 16-2-2004 149 2) Acknowledgement of Return of Income for A.Y.2010-11 150 & 151 with details of Share Application. 3) Copy of Demand Notice for A.Y.2008-09 dated 14-12-2010 152 & 153 by ITO ward 1(2), Kolkatta 4) Copy of Bank Statement showing share purchase Account 154 & 155 of Rs. 15 lakhs. 5) Copy of Balance Sheet/P & L A/c for A.Y.2010-11 156 to 174 Enkay Trafin Pvt. Ltd. PAN-AAACE5682P 1) Certificate of Registration of 4-6-2003 175 &176 2) Certificate dated 30-9-2011 of Renewal of RBI for 177 to 180 I.T.A No. 329/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No ACIT Vs.M/s. Truform Techno Products Ltd. 9 A.Y.2012-13 showing Investment as Nature of Trade. 3) Copy of Vijaya Bank Statement showing share purchase 181 & 182 of shares. J.P. Engg. Corpn. Pvt.Ltd. PAN- AABCJ23401 1) Certificate of Registration of RBI for doing Non- Banking 183 Financial Institution of 19-1-1999. 2) Certificate of Establishment by Kolkatta Municipal 184 Corporation recording doing Business of Shares & Securities of 8-1-2007. 3) Copy of Demand Notice u/s. 156 of Income Tax Act 185 to 187 of 29-10-2010 for A.Y.2008-09 with copy of Asst. Order u/s.147 r.w.s 143(3) by ITO ward 8(4), Kolkatta 4) Copy of Balance Sheet and P & L A/c. for A.Y.2010-11 188 to 208 with detailed copy of Share Application of various Shares. 5) Copy of Return of Income for A.Y.2010-11. 209 6) Copy of order u/s.143(1) for A.Y.2010-11 by ACIT (CPC) 210 to 216 of 15-3-2011. Subhlabh Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. PAN-AADCS8846A 1) Certificate of Registration of RBI for doing Non- Banking 217 Financial Institution of 23-4-2001. 2) Copy of Bank Statement of Indian Over Seas Bank 218 & 219 period April 2009 to January 2010 showing purchase of Share. 3) Certificate of Establishment of Kolkatta Municipal 220 Corporation doing Business of Investment of 29-8-2011. 4)Copy of Balance Sheet & P & L A/c. for A.Y.2010-11 221 to 243 Jeenma Business Pvt. Ltd PAN AAACJ7851K 1) Copy of Certificate of Account to True Form Techno 244 Products Ltd. confirming deposit of Rs. 1 crore. 2) Copy of Bank statement in proof of Amount by cheque 245 between 21-1-2010 to 17-3-2010 with receipt of Interest. 7. In the compilation of case laws filed by the assessee, we have dealt only with the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court being the law of the Land and the same are binding on all other Judicial Forums. 7.1. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. reported in [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) held as under: I.T.A No. 329/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No ACIT Vs.M/s. Truform Techno Products Ltd. 10 “If the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law but this amount of share money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of the assessee company.” 7.2. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of PCIT Vs. Adamine Construction (P.) Ltd. reported in [2019] 107 taxmann.com 85 (SC) held as under: “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Share capital) - Assessment year 2008-09 During relevant year assessee received share application money from share applicants Assessing Officer doubting identity and creditworthiness of those applicants, added said amount to assessee's income under section 68 Tribunal, however, deleted addition made by Assessing Officer - High Court noted that both assessee and later share applicants upon receiving notice under section 131, had produced documentary proof - Documents so produced included assessments and returns filed by share applicants as well as confirmation and acknowledgment documents - According to High court, if Assessing Officer wished to pursue matter, there were sufficient clues for him to have proceeded, for instance, it could have issued notices and obtained statements from bankers of share applicants or even balance sheets which existed in records of their Assessing Officers - However, Assessing Officer did not choose to pursue said course of action - High Court thus upheld Tribunal's order deleting addition made by Assessing Officer - Whether, on facts, SLP filed against order of High Court was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 2] [In favour of assessee]” 7.3. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of DCIT Vs. Godavari Tie-up (P.) Ltd. reported in [2019] 265 Taxmann.om 432 (SC) held as follows: “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Bank deposits) - In course of assessment, Assessing Officer created tax liability on ground that there was failure on part of assessee to produce evidence with regard to some of investors - However, bank statements were produced before appellate authority authenticity of which was not in question or doubt and, therefore, appellate authority set aside order of Assessing Officer - Tribunal as well as High Court upheld order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether, on facts, SLP filed against High Court's order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 2] [In favour of assessee]” I.T.A No. 329/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No ACIT Vs.M/s. Truform Techno Products Ltd. 11 7.4. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Rohtak Chain Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in [2019] 266 Taxmann.com 459 (SC) held as follows: “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Shares) - Assessment years 2012-13 to 2013-14 High Court by impugned order held that issuing share at a premium is a commercial decision and it is prerogative of Board of Directors of a company to decide premium amount and it is wisdom of shareholder whether they want to subscribe shares at such a premium or not and, ultimately, this is a mutual decision between both companies and their shareholders; thus, once genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of investors are established, revenue should not justifiably put itself in armchair of a businessman or in position of Board of Directors and assume role of ascertaining how much is a reasonable premium having regard to circumstances of case - Thus, it held that once genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of investors were established, no addition could be made as cash credit on ground that shares were issued at excess premium - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 51 and 53] [In favour of assessee]” 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials on record. As against the share application money received from five investors, during the appellate proceedings and the Remand report called for from the Assessing Officer clearly proved that the investors were found to be existing in their given addresses and the respective persons of those companies appeared before DDIT Investigation and confirmed the fact of depositing share application money with the assessee company. The Assessee further submitted copies of the audited accounts and bank statements of these investors before the A.O. Thus following the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (cited supra), the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions, the findings arrived by the Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference. I.T.A No. 329/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No ACIT Vs.M/s. Truform Techno Products Ltd. 12 8.1. Regarding the share application money invested by M/s. Balram Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., the same got amalgamated with M/s. Minda Capital Ltd. and the copy of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 16-09-2013 was submitted by the assessee. After verification of the same and copies of the audited accounts and bank statements and the share application money has been transferred to the assessee company through banking channels. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the Assessing officer and also following Supreme Court judgment in the case of Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. The Ld. Sr. D.R. neither could produce any contrary facts in support of its grounds raised before us nor demonstrate any error in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). In the absence of the same and respectfully following the Supreme Court Judgments in the case of Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd., Adamine Construction (P.) Ltd., Godavari Tie-up (P.) Ltd. and Rohtak Chain Co. (P.) Ltd. (cited supra), we hereby confirm the deletion made by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of share application money. Thus the grounds raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. 9. Regarding the unsecured loan received from M/s. Jeenma Business Pvt. Ltd., the assessee during the appellate proceedings, produced additional documents before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee also explained the above documents relating to a third party and could not gather the documents during the course of assessment proceedings which was accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) as a plausible explanation and thereby admitted the additional documents namely incorporation of company, Return of Income for A.Y. 2010- I.T.A No. 329/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No ACIT Vs.M/s. Truform Techno Products Ltd. 13 11 and Assessment Order passed by ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata, Ledger account, Confirmation of account and Bank Statements. After considering the above documents, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee proved the genuineness of the transaction. Before us, the Ld. Sr. D.R. could not produce any contra evidences, which warrant confirming the addition made by the A.O. In the absence of the same, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the additions u/s. 68 of the Act. Thus the grounds raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26 -07-2023 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 26/07/2023 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद