DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Land Mark Exim (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3773/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6379 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 01-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S N BHATIA
• Assessee Lawyers: R S AHUJA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence; Question of law
• Section: 133(6); 131; 68; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH D DD D : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, ,, , JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO. .. .3773/DEL/2011 3773/DEL/2011 3773/DEL/2011 3773/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2006 2006 2006 2006- -- -07 0707 07 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE- -- -1 11 14, 4,4, 4, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. VS. VS. VS. VS. M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD., M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD., M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD., M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD., 3, MUNIRKA MARG, 3, MUNIRKA MARG, 3, MUNIRKA MARG, 3, MUNIRKA MARG, VASANT VIHAR, VASANT VIHAR, VASANT VIHAR, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 057. 110 057. 110 057. 110 057. PAN : AABCL0508N. PAN : AABCL0508N. PAN : AABCL0508N. PAN : AABCL0508N. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO.3774/DEL/2011 .3774/DEL/2011 .3774/DEL/2011 .3774/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 2006 2006 2006- -- -07 0707 07 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, CENTRAL C CENTRAL C CENTRAL C CENTRAL CIRCLE IRCLE IRCLE IRCLE- -- -14, 14, 14, 14, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. VS. VS. VS. VS. M/S LAXMI BUILDTECH (P) LTD., M/S LAXMI BUILDTECH (P) LTD., M/S LAXMI BUILDTECH (P) LTD., M/S LAXMI BUILDTECH (P) LTD., H HH H- -- -33, GREEN PARK EXTENSION, 33, GREEN PARK EXTENSION, 33, GREEN PARK EXTENSION, 33, GREEN PARK EXTENSION, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN : PAN : PAN : PAN : AAACP1549C. AAACP1549C. AAACP1549C. AAACP1549C. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI S.N. BHATIA, SR.DR. ASSESSEES BY : SHRI R.S. AHUJA, CA. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VP VPVP VP : : : : ITA NO.3773/DEL/2011 ITA NO.3773/DEL/2011 ITA NO.3773/DEL/2011 ITA NO.3773/DEL/2011 REVENUES APPEAL IN THE CASE OF REVENUES APPEAL IN THE CASE OF REVENUES APPEAL IN THE CASE OF REVENUES APPEAL IN THE CASE OF M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD. M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD. M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD. M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD. :- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-III, NEW DELHI DATED 13 TH MAY, 2011 FOR THE AY 2006-07. 2. GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UND ER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,00,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA-3773 & 3774/D/2011 2 U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOAN. 3. THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE ONLY ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ABOVE GROUND NO.1. 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FRESH UNSECURE D LOANS AMOUNTING TO ` 25,29,86,700/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCE PT THE LOAN OF ` 4 CRORES FROM THE FOLLOWING TWO PARTIES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY PRODUCED THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITOR AN D DID NOT PROVE THE SOURCE OUT OF WHICH FRESH LOAN WAS GIVEN :- (I) CORONET VYAPPAR (P) LTD. - ` 3 CRORES (II) VOLLENT INVESTMENT & FIN.LTD. - ` 1 CRORE 5. LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION WITH THE FOL LOWING FINDING:- SUBSEQUENTLY ON 08.09.2010 THE APPELLANT MADE AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A AND FURNISHED FRESH EVID ENCE IN FORM OF COPY OF INCOME TAX ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AS WELL AS BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT IN CASE OF M/S CORONET VYAPP AR (P) LTD. AND M/S VOLLENT INVESTMENT & FINANCE LTD. HIGH LIGHTING THE DEBITS RELATING TO APPELLANT COMPANY. A REMAND REPORT ON THESE FRESH EVIDENCES WAS CALLED FROM THE AO WHI CH HAS SINCE BEEN RECEIVED VIDE LETTER DATED 25.04.2011. IN THIS REMAND REPORT THE AO HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ENQUIRI ES CONDUCTED IN BOTH THE ABOVE CASES HAVE REVEALED THA T THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS.3 C RORES FROM M/S CORONET VYAPPAR (P) LTD. VIDE CHEQUE NO.52 7218 DATED 06.08.2005 DRAWN ON HDFC BANK, K.G. MARG, NEW DELHI AND THAT THIS CREDITOR IS BEING ASSESSED TO I NCOME TAX AT ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA. LIKEWISE IN THE CASE O F M/S VOLLLENT INVESTMENT & FINANCE LTD. THE APPELLANT HA S RECEIVED RS.1 CRORE VIDE CHEQUE NO.450271 DATED 18.01.2006 FROM ACCOUNT NO. MAINTAINED BY THE CREDI TOR IN CANARA BANK, GREEN PARK, NEW DELHI. THAT THIS CRED ITOR IS ALSO ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AT ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI. ON 13.05.2011 THE APPELLANTS AR HAS IN COUNTER REP LY SUBMITTED THAT NOW THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITO R AND ITA-3773 & 3774/D/2011 3 CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, IT IS REQUESTED THAT AS NOTHING ADVERS E HAS BEEN FOUND THE ADDITION MADE TO THE INCOME UNDER SE CTION 68 MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 4. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT ON W HICH A REMAND REPORT HAS ALSO BEEN SENT BY THE AO IN WHICH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED O N PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHICH THE CASH CRE DITS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT, IT IS HELD THA T IN VIEW OF FACTUAL POSITION AND THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS ON TH E SUBJECT, AS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT THE ADDITI ON MADE FOR RS.4 CRORES IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE REVENUE, AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CI T(A), IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, LEARNED DR REL IED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE STATED THAT T HE ASSESSEE ONLY PRODUCED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE CREDITORS BUT DESP ITE THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SPECIFIC DIRECTION, THE CREDITORS WERE NO T PRODUCED. HE STATED THAT THE LOAN TAKEN WAS HUGE, I.E., ` 3 CRORES FROM ONE CREDITOR AND ` 1 CRORE FROM ANOTHER. WHEN SUCH A HUGE LOAN IS TAKEN , THE BURDEN UPON THE ASSESSEE IS HEAVY AND HE HAS TO ESTABLISH THE C REDITWORTHINESS OF THOSE PARTIES SO AS TO PROVE THAT THOSE PARTIES WER E CAPABLE OF GIVING SUCH A HUGE LOAN. 7. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, STATED THAT BOTH THE CREDITORS ARE COMPANY AND BOTH ARE ASSESSE D TO TAX. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY PRODU CED THEIR CONFIRMATIONS WHICH CONTAINED THEIR PERMANENT ACCOU NT NUMBERS. THE LOAN HAS BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THEIR ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS BANK STATEMENT AS A FRESH EVIDENCE. LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, IN THE REMAND REPORT, AF TER VERIFICATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND ANY MATERIAL AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE. HE ITA-3773 & 3774/D/2011 4 SUBMITTED THAT ON THESE FACTS, THE DECISION OF HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION P.LTD. [19 86] 159 ITR 78 WOULD BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED T HAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IN THE CASE OF ORISSA CORPORATION P.LTD. (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIV ED THE LOAN FROM THREE INDIVIDUALS WHOSE CONFIRMATIONS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CREDITORS WERE A SSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND THEIR GENERAL INDEX NUMBERS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE T HE CREDITORS, AT HIS REQUEST, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS U NDER SECTION 131 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT TO THE CREDITORS WHICH WERE R ETURNED UNSERVED WITH THE REMARK LEFT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TREATED THE CREDIT FROM THOSE PERSONS AMOUNTING TO ` 1,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. ON APPEAL, THE ITAT DELET ED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD N OT PRODUCE THE CREDITORS, ADVERSE INFERENCE CANNOT BE DRAWN AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE. HONBLE HIGH COURT REJECTED THE REVENUES REQUEST F OR REFERENCE. ON APPEAL, HONBLE APEX COURT UPHELD THE ORDER OF HON BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT AND HELD AS UNDER:- HELD, THAT IN THIS CASE THE RESPONDENT HAD GIVEN T HE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE ALLEGED CREDITORS. IT W AS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SAID CREDITOR S WERE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES. THEIR INDEX NUMBERS WERE IN THE FILE OF THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE, APART FROM ISSUI NG NOTICES UNDER SECTION 131 AT THE INSTANCE OF THE RESPONDENT, DID NOT PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER. THE REVENUE DID NOT EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE SAID ALLEGED CREDITORS TO FIND OUT WHETHER THEY WERE CREDITWORTHY. THERE WAS NO EFFORT MADE TO PURSUE T HE SO- CALLED ALLEGED CREDITORS. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RESPONDENT COULD NOT DO ANYTHING FURTHER. IN THE P REMISES, ITA-3773 & 3774/D/2011 5 IF THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RES PONDENT HAD DISCHARGED THE BURDEN THAT LAY ON IT, THEN IT C OULD NOT BE SAID THAT SUCH A CONCLUSION WAS UNREASONABLE OR PERVERSE OR BASED ON NO EVIDENCE. IF THE CONCLUSIO N WAS BASED ON SOME EVIDENCE ON WHICH A CONCLUSION COULD BE ARRIVED AT, NO QUESTION OF LAW AS SUCH AROSE. THE HIGH COURT WAS RIGHT IN REFUSING TO STATE A CASE. 9. WE FIND THAT THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT WOULD BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ARE BETTER T HAN THE FACTS BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ORISSA CORPOR ATION P.LTD. (SUPRA). IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE NO T ONLY PRODUCED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE CREDITORS, THEIR PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS BUT ALSO THE COPY OF THEIR ASSESSMENT ORDER AND BAN K ACCOUNTS. SINCE THERE WERE CERTAIN FRESH EVIDENCES FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A), HE CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT IS PLACED AT PAGES 15 TO 17 OF THE AS SESSEES PAPER BOOK. FROM THE REMAND REPORT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT D URING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BY DEPUTING THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX AND ALSO CALLI NG FOR THE INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6). AFTER SUCH ENQUI RY, HE SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REM AND REPORT IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE:- THE ASSESSEE HAS, IN ITS APPLICATION BEFORE YOUR G OODSELF, FURNISHED THE IT PARTICULARS, COPY OF ITR FILED, BA NK STATEMENT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD IN RESPECT OF BOT H THE PARTIES, IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF THE PARTIES ID ENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION . ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE UNDERSIGNED BY DEPU TING THE INSPECTOR OF THIS OFFICE AND CALLING FOR INFORM ATION U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE FINDINGS A RE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- 1. M/S CORONET VYAPAAR PVT.LTD. ITA-3773 & 3774/D/2011 6 DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED AN UNSECURED LOAN TO THE TUNE OF RS.3.00 CRORE FROM M/S CORONET VYAPAAR PVT.LTD. NECESSARY ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED AND VARIOUS INFORMATION HAS BEEN CALLED FOR. THE ENQUIRIES SO CONDUCTED REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE A MOUNT OF RS.3.00 CRORES FROM CORONET VYAPAAR PVT.LTD. VID E CHEQUE NO.527218 DATED 06.08.2005 DRAWN ON HDFC BAN K, K.G. MARG, NEW DELHI. M/S CORONET VYAPAAR PVT.LTD. IS BEING ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX WITH ITO WARD 6(1), KO LKATA VIDE PAN AABCC-0571-A. 3. M/S VOLLENT INVESTMENTS & FINANCE LTD. DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED RS.1,00,00,000/- AS UNSECURED LOAN FROM M/S VOLLENT INVESTMENTS & FINANCE LTD. NECESS ARY ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED AND VARIOUS INFORMATI ON HAS BEEN CALLED FOR. PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S VOLLENT INVESTMENTS & FINANCE LTD. MAINTAINED WITH CANARA BANK, GREEN PARK, NEW DELHI, REVEALS THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS RECEIVED RS.1,00,00,000/- FROM M/S VOLLENT INVESTME NTS & FINANCE LTD. VIDE CHEQUE NO.450271 DATED 18.01.2006 . M/S VOLLENT INVESTMENTS & FINANCE LTD. IS BEING ASSESSE D TO INCOME TAX WITH ITO WARD 17(4), KOLKATA VIDE PAN AA ACV- 0186-F. IN RESPECT OF THE UNSECURED LOAN RECEIVED FROM BOTH THESE PARTIES, THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- S.NO. NAME CONFIRMATION COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT COPY OF I.T. RETURN PHYSICALLY PRODUCED 1 CORONET VYAPPAR (P) LTD. FILED (AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS) FILED (CALLED FOR U/S 133(6) AND PLACED ON RECORD) FILED (WITH APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A AND VERIFIED BY THIS OFFICE) NOT PRODUCED 2 VOLLENT INVESTMENT & FIN. LTD. FILED (AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS) FILED (CALLED FOR U/S 133(6) AND PLACED ON RECORD) FILED (WITH APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A AND VERIFIED BY THIS OFFICE) NOT PRODUCED 10. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN THIS CASE , THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE CONFIRMATION, COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT, CO PY OF INCOME TAX ITA-3773 & 3774/D/2011 7 RETURN OF THE CREDITORS AND, ON VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY CALLING THE INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) AND AL SO THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, NO ADVERSE MATERIAL WAS FO UND. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND AT THE ADDRESS AND SUB MITTED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, ME RELY BECAUSE THE CREDITORS WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROV ING THE CASH CREDIT WHICH LAY UPON HIM. THAT IN THE CASE OF ORISSA COR PORATION P.LTD. (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE CRE DITORS AND EVEN ON ENQUIRY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE PERSONS WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. DESPITE THESE FACTS, SINCE THE CRED ITORS WERE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX, HONBLE APEX COURT UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WHEREIN THE ITAT HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS DISCHARGED THE INITIAL ONUS OF PROVING THE CASH CREDIT WHICH L AY UPON HIM. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ON THE FAC TS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CAS E OF ORISSA CORPORATION P.LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD BE APPLICABLE WITH ALL FORCE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE ORDE R OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. ITA NO.3773/DEL/2011 ITA NO.3773/DEL/2011 ITA NO.3773/DEL/2011 ITA NO.3773/DEL/2011 REVENUES APPEAL IN THE CASE OF REVENUES APPEAL IN THE CASE OF REVENUES APPEAL IN THE CASE OF REVENUES APPEAL IN THE CASE OF M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD. M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD. M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD. M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD. :- 11. IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE, GROUND NOS.1 & 2 READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,22,50,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOAN. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,95,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF BO GUS SHARE CAPITAL/SHARE PREMIUM. ITA-3773 & 3774/D/2011 8 12. THE REMAINING GROUNDS ARE ONLY IN SUPPORT OF AB OVE GROUNDS. 13. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, BOTH THE PART IES FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FA CTS IN THE CASE OF M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD. AND, THEREFORE, THEIR ARGUM ENTS REMAIN THE SAME. 14. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED IN DETAIL THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES IN THE CASE OF M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD. AND HAVE ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DUL Y DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF PROVING CASH CREDIT WHICH LAY UPON HIM AND ACCORDINGLY HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), FOR THE DETAILE D DISCUSSION THEREIN, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS CASE ALSO. 15. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MAY, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( (( (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 23.05.2014 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. REVENUE : DEPUTY CO DEPUTY CO DEPUTY CO DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE- -- -14, NEW DELHI. 14, NEW DELHI. 14, NEW DELHI. 14, NEW DELHI. 2. ASSESSEES : M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD., M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD., M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD., M/S LAND MARK EXIM (P) LTD., 3, MUNIRKA MARG, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI 3, MUNIRKA MARG, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI 3, MUNIRKA MARG, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI 3, MUNIRKA MARG, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI 110 057 110 057 110 057 110 057 AND M/S LAXMI BUILDTECH (P) LTD., AND M/S LAXMI BUILDTECH (P) LTD., AND M/S LAXMI BUILDTECH (P) LTD., AND M/S LAXMI BUILDTECH (P) LTD., H H H H- -- -33, GREEN PARK EXTENSION, NEW DELHI. 33, GREEN PARK EXTENSION, NEW DELHI. 33, GREEN PARK EXTENSION, NEW DELHI. 33, GREEN PARK EXTENSION, NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR