I.T.O.-4(1), Agra V. M/s Flint Steels Pvt. Ltd., Agra

ITA 377/AGR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 37720314 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: K K JAIN
• Keywords: Bogus Share capital; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Difference of opinion; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 377/AGRA/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2003-04 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. FLINT STEEL PVT. LTD., 4(1), AGRA. B-668, KAMLA NAGAR, AGRA. (PAN :AAACF 6670 L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI K.K. JAIN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 10.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.10.2011 ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2010 OF LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE READ AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, AGRA HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE AO U/S. 1 47 WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT PROCEEDI NGS WERE INITIATED AFTER RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING, WHIC H COMMUNICATED THE INFORMATION AFTER MAKING ENQUIRY IN THE MATTER AND THE INVESTIGATION WING IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE DEPARTMENT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, AGRA HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,00,000/- BEING ACCOM MODATION ENTRIES ARRANGED IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WITHOUT PROPERL Y APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, AGRA HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.28,000/- BEING COMMISSI ON AMOUNT INCURRED FOR TAKING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ITA NO. 377/AGRA/2010 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND FI LED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.11.2003. A NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WAS ISSUED. I N RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED ON 27.11.2003 BE TREATED AS THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148. THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 WERE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF SOME INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, I.E., ADDL. DIT (INV.), AGRA TH AT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES BY PAYING CASH AND ARRANGING BOGUS DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY/CAPITAL GAINS/GIFTS AND HAS RECEI VED A SUM OF RS.3,00,600/-, RS.2,50,500/-, RS.2,00,400/- AND RS.2,00,400/- RESPECTIVELY FROM M /S. SPARROW MARKETING (P) LTD., M/S. TRANSPLAN FINANCIAL SERVICES, M/S. RAHUL FINLEASE ( P) LTD. AND M/S. NIKHIL BUILDERS PROMOTER THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT NO.24607, 24625, 24619 AND 24,664 WITH STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR. THE INVESTIGATION WING HAD PROVIDED A LIST OF SUCH BENEFICIARIES, WHICH ALSO BEARS THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS CON TENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS AND ON MERITS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CO MPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3)/147 AFTER MAKING ADDITION U/S. 68 OF RS.14,00,000/- AS ACCOMM ODATION ENTRIES IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.28,000/- AS COMMISSION @ 2% PAID FOR ARRANGING THE ABOVE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF RS.14,00,000/-. 3. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND VARIOUS CASE LAWS ON LEGAL GROUND, QUASHED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OBSERVING AS UNDER : I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AT LENGTH AND POSITION OF LAW. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW THE APPELLANT DESERVE TO SUCCEED. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 HAD BEEN INITIATED ON THE BASI S OF ALLEGED INFORMATION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT. THE AO WAS NOT SURE ABOUT THE ALLEGED ITA NO. 377/AGRA/2010 3 ACCOMMODATION ENTRY WHICH CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY WAS ASSUMED TO BE PRAM FACIE UN EXPLAINED. HAD THERE BEEN A SOLD FOUNDATION, IT MUST HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN T HE REASONS RECORDED. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL. THE VERY FOUNDATION IS WRONG AS THE AO HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE MONEY HAS BEEN REMITTED THROUGH D D MADE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE CONCERNED PARTY. IT IS ALSO AN ADMIT TED FACT THAT THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE REASONS IS NOT TALLIED. IT IS SETTL ED LAW THAT AN ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF MERE SUSPICION. THERE H AS TO BE SOME RELEVANT MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH AN OPINION COULD BE FORMED ABOUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME, WARRANTING ACTION U/S. 147. IT IS ALSO S ETTLED LAW THERE SHOULD BE A LIVE AND DIRECT LINK BETWEEN THE MATERIAL AND FORMATION OF BELIEF. SUCH A BELIEF CANNOT BE FORMED ON THE BASIS OF ANY AND EVERY MATERIAL, H OWSOEVER, VAGUE, REMOTE, FARFETCHED AND IRRELEVANT. THE INFORMATION HAS NO L EGAL SANCTITY UNDER LAW SINCE IT IS NOT BASED ON ANY DEFINITE MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE O N RECORD OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THE RECORDS OF THE CASE THAT THE APP ELLANT HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. CONTRARILY THE SOURCE OF AMOUN T HAS BEEN ASCERTAINED BY THE AO HIMSELF. THE AO HAS PROCEEDED TO TAKE THE VI EW OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES SOLELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AS NO SHARES WERE SOLD BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. NO ADVERSE MATERIAL HAD BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT EVEN ON SPECIFIC REQUEST. FURTHER NO INDE PENDENT SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT AND AO NOT APPLIED HIS OWN MIND TO ARRIVE AT THIS CONCL USION. THUS, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ARE HEREBY QUASHED AND GROUND NUMBER 1 IS ALLOWED. 4. ON MERITS ALSO, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDIT IONS OBSERVING AS UNDER : I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR AND THE POSITION OF LAW. IN MY OPINION, THE APPE LLANT DESERVES TO SUCCEED. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE N ECESSARY DOCUMENTS SUCH AS SHARE APPLICATION FORM RECEIVED FROM THE SHARE HOLD ER CONTAINING THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF APPLICANT WHICH INCLUDES NAME OF APPLICA NT, ADDRESS, PAN, ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS, NUMBER OF SHARES APPLIED, MODE OF PAYM ENT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, DETAILS OF BANK OF SHARE HOLDER, BRANCH, DD NUMBER, COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOME-TAX RETURN FILED, COPY OF MASTER DATA RECORD OF THE APPLICANT COMPANY. NO ADVERSE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PLA CED BY THE AO ON THE RECORD OF THE CASE WHICH AN JUSTIFY THE ADDITION OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS UNEXPLAINED. THUS, CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT BECOMES ABSOLUTE CLEAR THAT APPELLANT AT EVERY STAGE HAS GI VEN ALL THE DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCES WHICH PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANT, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IN THE PRESENT MATT ER THE APPELLANT HAD SUFFICIENTLY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AND BURDEN AND THERE IS NO EVID ENCE ON RECORD ABOUT THE FALSITY OF THE TRANSACTION. THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE AR APPEAR TO BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. ONCE T HE INITIAL BURDEN HAS BEEN ITA NO. 377/AGRA/2010 4 DISCHARGED IN RESPECT OF THE IDENTITY OF THE INVEST ORS, ABOUT THEIR EXISTENCE, THE BURDEN SHIFTS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE OTHERWISE NOT ONLY THAT INVESTED AMOUNT DID NOT BELONG TO THE CREDITOR BUT FURTHER IT HAS TO PR OVE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY O F THE FACTS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CONTEN TIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, PARTICULARL Y, THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT AND JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, I AM OF THE VIEW THA T THE ADDITION MADE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.14, 00,000/- MADE U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IS HEREBY DELETED. 5. THE LEARNED DR REFERRING TO GROUND NO. 1, CONTEN DED THAT ON THE FACTS, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN LAW IN QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147. REFERRING TO THE REASONS TO BELIEVE, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECE IVED INFORMATION FROM ADDL. DIT (INV.)THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM T HE PARTIES REFERRED TO ABOVE AND HAS RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. IN THE REASONS THE AO HAS DULY RECORDED NAME OF THE ALLEGED SHARE APPLICANTS, NAME OF THE BANK THROUGH WHICH THE MONE Y WAS RECEIVED WITH DATES. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED THE MONEY IN HIS BA NK ACCOUNT. THIS INFORMATION SPECIFICALLY RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE VA GUE INFORMATION. THE REASONS SO RECORDED HAVE RATIONAL CONNECTION TO THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF. THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REASONS TO BELIEVE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER RECEIVING THE SPECI FIC INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING WHICH IS A VALID PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR INITIATING PROCEED INGS U/S. 147. SUFFICIENCY OF REASONS CANNOT BE LOOKED INTO BY THE COURT AS HELD IN SEVERAL DECISIO NS. THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING IS SUFFICIENT FOR INVOKING THE P ROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THE PROCEEDINGS AS INVALID AND QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147. ITA NO. 377/AGRA/2010 5 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RE LIED ON ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE AND HA VE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) TREATED THE REASONS RECORDED TO BE VAGUE AND HAVING BEEN RECORDED WITHO UT APPLICATION OF MIND. THIS FINDING OF THE CIT(A), IN OUR OPINION IS NOT TENABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 147, THE A.O. MUST HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE. THIS IS THE FOUNDAT ION OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO BE INITIATED U/S 147. THE WORD REASON IN THE PHRASE REASON TO BELIEVE WOULD MEAN CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS A CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION TO T HINK OR SUPPOSE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT CAN BE SAID TO HAVE A REASON TO BELI EVE THAT SUCH INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE CANNOT MEAN THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE FINALLY ASCERTAINED THE FACTS BY LEGAL EVIDENCE. IT ONLY MEANS THAT THE AO FORMS A BELIEF FROM THE EXAMINATION HE MAKES AND INFORMATION THAT HE RECEIVES. IF HE DISCOVERS OR F INDS OR SATISFIES PRIMA-FACIE HIMSELF THAT THE TAXABLE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT WOULD AMO UNT TO SAYING THAT HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THE I NSTANT CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WI NG, ON WHICH REASONS TO BELIEVE ARE BASED, DOES NOT RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE COURT CANNOT LOOK INTO THE SUFFICIENCY OF REASONS WHICH WEIGHED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMING TO THE BELIEF THAT CERTAIN TAXABLE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO SETTLED THE LAW IN THE CASE OF RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. VS. ITO 236 ITR 34 THAT IN DETER MINING WHETHER COMMENCEMENT OF THE RE- ITA NO. 377/AGRA/2010 6 ASSESSMENT WAS VALID, IT IS ONLY TO BE SEEN WHETHER THERE WAS PRIMA FACIE SOME MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE DEPARTMENT COULD REOPEN THE CASE . THE SUFFICIENCY OR CORRECTNESS OF THE MATERIAL IS NOT A THING TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS ST AGE. 8.. WE FURTHER NOTED THAT RECENTLY HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AGR INVESTMENT LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT, 333 ITR 146 HAS DEALT WITH THE SIMILAR ISSUE. IN THIS CASE, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT T HE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMPLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSES SMENT AND THEY HELD THAT THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER. WHILE HOLDING SO, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS DISCUSSED VARIOUS DECISIONS. IN THIS DECI SION IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER : THERE WAS SPECIFIC INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE O FFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION AS REGARDS THE TRANSAC TIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A NUMBER OF CONCERNS WHICH HAD MADE A CCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND THEY WERE NOT GENUINE TRANSACTIONS. IT WAS NEITHER A CHANGE OF OPINION NOR DID IT CONVEY A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF A SPECIFIC PR OVISION WHICH WAS DONE IN A PARTICULAR MANNER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND SO UGHT TO BE DONE IN A DIFFERENT MANNER IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE REASON TO BELIEVE HAD BEEN APPROPRIATELY UNDERSTOOD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THERE WAS MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE NOTICE WAS ISSUE D. IN EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE SUFFICIENCY OF REASONS FOR FORMATION OF THE BELIEF COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. IT WAS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PUT FORTH ITS STAND IN DETAIL TO SATISFY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS NO ESC APEMENT OF TAXABLE INCOME. 9. IN THE CASE OF BRIJ MOHAN AGARWAL VS. ACIT, 268 ITR 400 (ALL.), THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, DISMISSING THE PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT THE BELIEF OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AN HONEST AND REASONABLE BELIEF ON THE MATERIAL WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATI ON WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. IMPORTANT MATERIAL HAD COME BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO SHOW THAT THE ITA NO. 377/AGRA/2010 7 PETITIONER WAS SUPPRESSING HIS INCOME BY INDULGING IN BOGUS TRANSACTIONS. THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS VALID. 10. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. PU RUSHOTTAM DAS BANGUR AND ANOTHER, 224 ITR 362 (SC) HAS LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW ON THIS ISSUE THAT AT THE TIME OF INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE THE MATERIAL RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WIN G IS ALSO MATERIAL IF IT CONTAINS THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING O FFICER AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF THE REASONS/FORMATION OF BELIEF IS NOT SUPPOSED TO COUN TER THE EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL COLLECTED BY HIM WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS INVOLVED IN DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE ISSUE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FAC TS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHEREIN THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED BY HIM. THUS, THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AND, THE REVENUE SUCCEEDS ON LEGAL ASPECT OF THIS CASE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS ALLOWED. 11. ADVERTING TO MERITS OF GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 WHEREB Y THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.14,00,000/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OBTAINED IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND RS.28,000/- PAID AS COMMISSION THEREON, WE FIND NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF C IT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MADE AN ELABORA TE DISCUSSION AND RECORDED CATEGORICAL FINDINGS ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LEAR NED DR COULD NOT BE ABLE TO REBUT THE FINDINGS REACHED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS SUCH AS SHARE APPLICATI ON FORMS RECEIVED FROM THE SHARE HOLDERS ITA NO. 377/AGRA/2010 8 CONTAINING THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANTS INCLUDING NAMES OF APPLICANTS, ADDRESS, PAN, ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS, NUMBER OF SHARES APPLIED, M ODE OF PAYMENT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, DETAILS OF BANK OF SHARE HOLDER, BRANCH, DD NUMBER, COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS FILED, COPY OF MASTER DATA RECORD OF THE AP PLICANT COMPANY AND SO ON. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOWHERE SPEAKS THAT THERE WAS ANY DEFECT IN T HESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH GO TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENES S OF THE TRANSACTIONS. MOREOVER, THE QUESTION REGARDING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WHETHER TO BE ADD ED U/S. 68 OR NOT HAS BEEN WELL DECIDED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LIMITED, WHEREIN, THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER : WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FO R THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE COMPANY FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS, WHOSE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO THE AO , THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PROCEED TO REOPEN THEIR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSME NTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HENCE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY WITH THE IMPUGNED JUDGM ENT. 12. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND THE DECISION OF HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LIMITED (SUPRA), WE FIND NO MATE RIAL ON RECORD TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUN T OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND COMMISSION THEREON. THUS, GRO UND NOS. 2 & 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED.. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.10.2011. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED: 19 TH OCTOBER, 2011 *AKS/- ITA NO. 377/AGRA/2010 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY