ITO 10(2)(4), MUMBAI V. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3645/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2136 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A RAMACHANDRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: DR P DANIAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Tangible material; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 68; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ./ ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014 ( !'#! / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(2)(4) $%& /APPELLANT ROOM NO. 431, 4TH FLOOR AYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 / VS. M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. '(%& / RESPONDENT A-20, A WING, 1 ST FLOOR SATYAM SHOPPING CENTRE, M.G. ROAD GHATKOPAR (E), MUMBAI 400077 % ./ PAN - AAICS6463J ./ ITA NO. 3644/MUM/2014 ( !'#! / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(2)(4) $%& /APPELLANT ROOM NO. 431, 4TH FLOOR AYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 / VS. M/S. SITARA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. '(%& / RESPONDENT 103, 1ST FLOOR, NAND KUTIR MILIND NAGAR, HIMALAYA SOCIETY GHATKOPAR (W), MUMBAI 400086 % ./ PAN - AABCS6464L 2 ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014+6 OTHERS M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD & OTHERS ./ ITA NO. 3646/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(2)(4) /APPELLANT ROOM NO. 431, 4TH FLOOR AYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 / VS. M/S. SAMSUNG BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS P. LTD. / RESPONDENT 101, VALLABH VIHAR, M.G. ROAD GHATKOPAR (E), MUMBAI 400077 ./ PAN - AAFCS3366K ./ ITA NO. 3647/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(2)(4) /APPELLANT ROOM NO. 431, 4TH FLOOR AYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 / VS. M/S. SOUMYA TRADING & FINANCE P. LTD. / RESPONDENT 101, VALLABH VIHAR, M.G. ROAD GHATKOPAR (E), MUMBAI 400077 ./ PAN - AAFCS6479B ./ ITA NO. 3648/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(2)(2) /APPELLANT ROOM NO. 463, 4TH FLOOR AYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 / VS. M/S. PRARUP PROPERTIES P. LTD. / RESPONDENT 401, 4 TH FLOOR, SAI SIDDHI APPT. PLOT NO. 220, 11 TH ROAD CHEMBUR, MUMBAI 400071 ./ PAN - AAFCS3366K 3 ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014+6 OTHERS M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD & OTHERS ./ ITA NO. 3650/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(2)(2) /APPELLANT ROOM NO. 463, 4TH FLOOR AYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 / VS. M/S. ROOP DARSHAN REAL ESTATE P. LTD. / RESPONDENT 401, 4 TH FLOOR, SAI SIDDHI APPT. PLOT NO. 220, 11 TH ROAD CHEMBUR, MUMBAI 400071 ./ PAN - AACCR2661K ./ ITA NO. 3651/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(2)(2) /APPELLANT ROOM NO. 463, 4TH FLOOR AYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 / VS. M/S. SUMANGAL BUILDER & DEVELOPERS P. LTD. / RESPONDENT 4 TH FLOOR, SAI COMMERCIAL COMPLEX BKC, DEVSHI MARG, GOVANDI (E) MUMBAI 400079 ./ PAN - AACCR2661K / APPELLANT BY: SHRI A. RAMACHANDRAN / RESPONDENT BY: DR. P. DANIAL / // / DATE OF HEARING : 18.11.2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2015 / O R D E R 4 ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014+6 OTHERS M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD & OTHERS PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM:- THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST R ESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-22 MUMBAI IN RESPECT OF SEVEN DIFFERENT ASSESSEES. SINCE THESE APPEALS INVOLVE COMMON ISSU ES, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CO NSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014 AY 2007-08 : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON FOL LOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.40,00,000/- MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF I T ACT IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ADDITION WAS BASED ON SPECIFIC INFORMATION PRO VIDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THE INVESTOR COMPANIES HAD ISSUED CHEQUES TOWARDS T HE ALLEGED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN RETURN OF CASH. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE F ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON IT TO PROVE THE CREDIT ENTRIES OF SHARE APPLICATION MO NEY AS REQUIRED UNDER THE STATUTE. 2.1 ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDER AND DEVE LOPER. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S . 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE-COMPA NY RECEIVED 5 ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014+6 OTHERS M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD & OTHERS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TO THE TUNE OF RS.85 LAKHS FROM EIGHT COMPANIES OUT OF WHICH RS.40 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FRO M THREE COMPANIES VIZ. MIHIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD., ALPHA CEHM IE TRADE AGENCIES PVT. LTD. AND TALENT INFOWAY LTD. THE ST AND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THE REASONS RECORDED DID NOT WHISPER ABOUT ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH TRIGGERED RE-OPENING U/ S 147. THE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DIRECTORATE OF INCOME-TAX (INVESTIGAT ION) WITHOUT RECORDING ASSESSING OFFICERS OWN SATISFACTION AND THE INFORMATION WAS ACCEPTED IN A MECHANICAL MANNER. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE RECENT ITAT DECISION IN TH E CASE OF INDIA TERMINAL CONNECTOR SYSTEM LTD. HOWEVER, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE AND AFTER COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3), THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED DETAILED REPORT FROM THE INVESTIGATION WIN G ALONGWITH COPIES OF STATEMENT RECORDED FROM BOTH SHRI MUKESH C. CHOKSI AND SHRI JAYESH SAMPAT. THUS, A TANGIBLE MATERIAL IN T HE FORM OF STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE ABOVE INDIVIDUALS WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER THE ASSESSMENT W AS COMPLETED. 6 ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014+6 OTHERS M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD & OTHERS AFTER RECEIVING THE REPORT AND THE STATEMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS AND THEN HE FORMED AN INDEPENDENT OPINION AND AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF HAD RECORDED T HE REASONS FOR REOPENING. 2.2 AFTER REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.40 LAKHS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM VARIOUS CORPORATE ENTITIES. ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS SHARE APPLICA TION MONEY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, WHIC H WAS DELETED BY CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE INTER ALIA SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT O F SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THA T ADDITION WAS MADE BASED ON SPECIFIC INFORMATION PROVIDED BY INVE STIGATION WING OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THAT INVESTOR COMPANIES HAVE ISSUED CHEQUES TOWARDS ALLEGED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN RETURN OF CASH. ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON IT TO PROVE THE CREDIT ENTRIES OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS REQUIRED UNDE R STATUTE. 7 ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014+6 OTHERS M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD & OTHERS ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND T HAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. BEFORE US THE STAND OF THE L D. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THE F ACTS OF THIS CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FOLLOWING DECIDED CASES AND PLEA DED THAT THE RATIO DECIDED IN THOSE CASES MAY BE APPLIED TO THIS AS WE LL AS THE MATTER IS COVERED THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF ITAT. I) ITO (10(2)(3) VS. J.J. MULTITRADE PVT LTD, IN I TA NO.2158/MUM/2014 : AY 2007-08, J-BENCH & ITA NO.2159/MUM/2014 : AY 2008-09, J-BENCH THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH NOS. 8 & 9 ARE REPRODUCED HE REIN BELOW: APPLYING TO THE FACTS OF INSTANT CASE TO THE PROPO SITION LAID DOWN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ADDITION SO MADE BY TREATING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO D ELETE THE SAME. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART, IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. II) ITAT E BENCH IN M/S. SDB ESTATE PVT LTD VS. IT O-(5)(3)(2) IN ITA NO. 584/MUM/2015: AY 2008-09 HAS DECIDED SIMILAR ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED LEGAL POSITION AND IN THE LIGHT OF RELIABLE EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD BY ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHI NESS OF SHAREHOLDERS, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY T HE REVENUE, THE ADDITIONS MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF GENERAL 8 ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014+6 OTHERS M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD & OTHERS STATEMENT OF SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI CANNOT BE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY ORDERED TO B E DELETED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. III) IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ITAT-D BENCH HAS DECIDED THE FOLLOWING CASES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE ON SIMILAR ISSUE. A) ITO 10(2)(1) VS. M/S. DEEP DARSHAN PROPERTIES PVT LTD IN ITA NO. 2117/MUM/2014 : AY 2006-07 AND ITA NO.2118/MUM/2014 : AY 2007-08 B) ITO 10(2)(3) VS. AAJIVAN COMPUTERS PVT LTD IN ITA NO.2160/MUM/2014 :AY 2006-07 C) ITO 10(2)(3) VS. DIGNITY SECURITIES TRADING PVT LT D IN ITA NO.2157/MUM/2014 :AY 2006-07 D) ITO 10(2)(1) VS. M/S. BLUE HILL PROPERTIES PVT LTD IN ITA NO.2119/MUM/2014 :AY 2006-07 2.3 IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. LOVELY EXPORTS (PVT) LTD, REPORTED IN [2008] 216 CTR 195 ( SC), IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- IF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHARE HOLDERS WHOS NAME ARE GIVEN TO THE AO THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PROC EED TO REOPEN THEIR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW BUT IT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ASSESSEE COMPANY. 2.4 IN THIS BACKGROUND, IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T THERE IS NO 9 ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014+6 OTHERS M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD & OTHERS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY T O SUPPORT SUCH IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T THE STATEMENTS OF ANY PERSON RECORDED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147, THE ASSE SSEE-COMPANY HAS FULLY DISCHARGED THE BURDEN OF PROOF, ONUS OF P ROOF AND EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF SHARE CAPITAL AND ADVANCES RECEIVED BY ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENU INENESS OF TRANSACTION BY BANKING INSTRUMENTS WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE FURTHER STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY SUBSTANTIATED THE DETAILS WITH THE DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCES AS EXTRACTED FROM THE WEBSITE OF MINISTRY OF CORPOR ATE AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2.5 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE P RESENT CASE AS WELL AS CONSIDERING THE DECISIONS AS DISCUSSED ABOV E ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FI NDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ENTIRE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS OF RS.40 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON 10 ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014+6 OTHERS M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD & OTHERS ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL SUBSCRIPTION RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE- COMPANY. 2.6 ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 3. ITA NO. 3644/MUM/2014 : AY 2006-07 : IN THIS CASE, I.E. ITO VS. M/S. SITARA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., THE ASSESSING OFF ICER MADE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1,15,47,169/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF T HE ACT, OUT OF THIS AMOUNT RS. 85 LAKHS WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF SHARE AP PLICATION MONEY AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.30,47,169/- WAS MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN. BOTH THE AFORESAID ADDI TIONS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,15,47,169/- WAS DELETED BY CIT(A). 3.1 THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL REGARDING THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.85 LAKHS I S SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE WE DECIDED ABOVE IN CASE OF M/S. SUPER CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 VIDE PARA 2.1 TO 2.5 OF THIS ORDER. THEREFORE, FAC TS AND ISSUES BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING SAME REASONING WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHT LY DELETED THE 11 ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014+6 OTHERS M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD & OTHERS ADDITION OF RS.85 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THE SAME IS UPHELD. 3.2 THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.30,47,169/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACC OUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A). T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THIS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH CREDI T. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION MAINLY ON THE GROUN D THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI MUKESH C. CHOKSI AND SHRI JAYESH SAMPAT BY THE INVESTIGATION WING WAS INCORRECT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE PROVED. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A), HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSE E-COMPANY, HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION ON BOTH ACCOUNTS (I.E. RS.85 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND RS.30,47,169 /- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN) BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE-COM PANY HAD DULY DISCHARGED THE INITIAL BURDEN IN RESPECT OF IDENTIT Y, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF ALL TRANSACTIONS BY RELYING ON V ARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. MOREOVER, SIMILAR ISSUE WAS ADJUDI CATED BY HIM 12 ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014+6 OTHERS M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD & OTHERS IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LT D FOR AY 2007-08 VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-22/IT-10(2)-4/IT-63/2013-14 W HEREIN HAVING CONSIDERED ALL INGREDIENT OF SEC. 68 OF IT A CT, GRANTED RELIEF TO ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY US IN PARAGR APH 3 OF THIS ORDER. THUS, THIS ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS R IGHTLY DELETED THE AMOUNT OF RS.30,47,169/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LO AN WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 3.3 ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 4. ITA NO . 3646/MUM/2014 : AY 2006-07 : IN THIS CASE, I.E., ITO VS. M/S. SAMSUNG BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS P. LTD., THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.25,23,426/- UNDER SECT ION 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.10 LAKH S AND ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.15,23,426/- WHICH WAS DELET ED BY CIT(A). TH E ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE WE D ECIDED ABOVE IN CASE OF M/S. SUPER CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO . 3645/MUM/2014 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND IN THE CASE OF M /S. SITARA 13 ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014+6 OTHERS M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD & OTHERS PROPERTIES PVT LTD IN ITA NO. 3644/MUM/2014 (SUPRA) IN THIS ORDER ITSELF. FACTS AND ISSUES BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING SAME REASONING WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS ON BOT H ACCOUNT I.E. RS.10 LAKHS (SHARE APPLICATION MONEY) AND RS.15,23, 426/- (UNSECURED LOAN) UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 . THIS VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY OUR DECISION IN M/S. SITARA PROPERTIES PVT LTD (SUPRA) VIDE PARA 3.1 TO 3.3 OF THIS ORDER. THE SAME IS UPH ELD. 4.1 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. ITA NO. 3647/MUM/2014 : AY 2006-07 : IN THIS CASE I.E., ITO VS. M/S. SOUMYA TRADING & FINANCE P. LTD., ALSO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.35 LAKHS AND ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED L OAN OF RS.45,70,686/- WHICH WAS DELETED BY CIT(A). TH E ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS ALSO SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE WE DECIDED ABOV E IN CASE OF M/S. SUPER CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 364 5/MUM/2014 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 , IN ITA NO. 3644/MUM/2014 (SUPRA) IN THE CASE OF M/S. SITARA PROPERTIES PVT LTD AND IN ITA NO.3646/M UM/2014 IN THE CASE OF M/S. SAMSUNG BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, WHEREIN 14 ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014+6 OTHERS M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD & OTHERS WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE ON BOTH ACCOUNTS. FACTS AND ISSUES BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING SAME REASONING WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON BOTH ACCO UNTS. THIS VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY OUR DECISION IN M/S. SITARA PROPERTIES PVT LTD (SUPRA) VIDE PARA 3.1 TO 3.3 OF THIS ORDER. THE SAME IS UPH ELD. 5.1 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. ITA NO . 3648/MUM/2014 : AY 2007-08 : IN THIS CASE, I.E. ITO VS. M/S. PRARUP PROPERTIES P. LTD., THE ASSESSING O FFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 75 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 68 IN RESPEC T OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A). TH E ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE WE DECIDED AB OVE IN CASE OF M/S. SUPER CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 364 5/MUM/2014 FOR A.Y. 2007-08, WHEREIN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) GRANT ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SAME FACTS HAS BEEN APPROVED BY US. THEREFORE, FACTS AND ISSUES BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING SAME REASONING WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED ADDITION OF RS.75 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER U/S 15 ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014+6 OTHERS M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD & OTHERS 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY . THE SAME IS UPHELD. 6.1 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. ITA NO . 3650/MUM/2014 : AY 2007-08 : IN THIS CASE I.E., ITO VS. M/S. ROOP DARSHAN REAL ESTATE P. LTD., ASSESSING OF FICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 70 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 68 IN RESPEC T OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A). IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BEFORE US IN ITA NO. 3645/MUM/ 2014 IN T HE CASE OF SUPER CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN WE DIS MISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES ARE SIMILAR IN THIS APPEAL, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS R IGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.70 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. SAME IS UPHELD. 7.1 IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. 8. ITA NO . 3651/MUM/2014 : IN THIS CASE, I.E., ITO VS. M/S. SUMANGAL BUILDER & DEVELOPERS P. LTD.. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 68 IN RE SPECT OF SHARE 16 ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014+6 OTHERS M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD & OTHERS APPLICATION MONEY WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A). IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BEFORE US IN ITA NO. 3645/MUM/ 2014 IN T HE CASE OF SUPER CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN WE DIS MISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES ARE SIMILAR IN THIS APPEAL, SO FOLLOWING SAME REASONING WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,00,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT. SAME IS UPHELD. 8.1 IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALSO D ISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVEN UE ARE DISMISSED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. !'# 30.11.2015 $% SD/- SD/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) & /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' & /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, !'# DATED 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 *BT 17 ITA NO. 3645/MUM/2014+6 OTHERS M/S. SUPERLINE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD & OTHERS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 22, MUMBAI 4. / THE CIT - 10, MUMBAI 5. , , / DR, A BENCH ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ! / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER ' //TRUE COPY// /ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI