ITO, WARD- 6(1), NEW DELHI V. CHETAN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 4282/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7039 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SARAS KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY BHAGWANI
• Keywords: Tangible material; Corroborative evidences; Accommodation entries
• Section: 133(6); 207; 139(1); 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4282/DEL/2017 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012-13 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), NEW DELHI-110002 VS M/S CHETAN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. B-108, SWASTHYA VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAACC2853J ASSESSEE BY : SH. AJAY BHAGWANI, CA REVENUE BY : SH. SARAS KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 18.12.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.02.2020 ORDER PER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AG AINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-2, NEW DELHI DATED 28.02.2 017. 2. DURING THE F.Y. 2011-12, THE COMPANY HAS RECEIVE D ADVANCES OF RS.2,19,00,000/- FROM THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES: S. NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY AMOUNT OF ADVANCE(RS.) 1. M/S ARTHA SOFTWARE PVT. LTD. 35,00,000/- 2. M/S CORPORATE NETWORK SOLUTION PVT. LTD. 50,00,000/ - 3. M/S GAJANAN REALCON PVT. LTD. 19,00,000/- 4. M/S GARNET TEXTILES PVT. LTD. 50,00,000/ - 5. M/S SHIVANJALI IMPEX PVT. LTD. 25,00,000/ - 6. M/S ZESTY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 40,00,000/- TOTAL 2,19,00,000/ - 3. ACCORDINGLY, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, ITA NO. 4282/DEL/2017 CHETAN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. 2 CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE AFORESAID A DVANCES. IN RESPONSE, THE A.R OF THE COMPANY VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 26.08. 2014 FILED CONFIRMATIONS OF THE COMPANIES FROM WHOM ADVANCES O F RS. 2,19,00,000/- HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY. THE A.R. OF THE COMPANY VIDE LETTER DATED 22.09.2014 STATED THAT DURING THE YEAR COMPAN Y HAS ADVANCED A SUM OF RS.12,22,00,000/- TO M/S NIDHI PROMOTERS PVT . LTD. TOWARDS BOOKING OF SPACE IN A COMMERCIAL BUILDING BEING CON STRUCTED BY M/S NIDHI PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. IN SECTOR-4, DWARKA, NEW DELHI. IN TURN, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ACCEPTED ADVANCES OF RS. 11,54,00,000/- FROM VARIOUS PARTIES FOR SALE OF SPACE IN COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT DWARKA, AS BOOKED BY THE COMPANY. NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 WERE ISSUED TO FURNISH REQUISITE DETAILS ON 29.09.2014 TO THE I NVESTOR COMPANIES. THOUGH, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE INITIALLY, LATER ALL THESE COMPANIES FILED DETAILS ON THE SAME DAY ON 24.11.2014. LATER, THE A SSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 WERE ISSUED TO THE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES ON 05.02.2015 REQUIRING THEM FOR PERSONAL DEPOSITION ON 11.02.2015 WITH REQ UISITE DETAILS IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINE NESS OF TRANSACTIONS HELD WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN ALL THE CASES, N OTICES U/S 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WERE RETURNED UN-SERVED. 4. THEREFORE, SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 WERE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTORS OF THESE C OMPANIES ON 16.02.2015 REQUIRING THEM FOR PERSONAL DEPOSITION O N 20.02.2015. SUMMONS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WERE RETURNED UN-SERVED IN THE CASE OF SH. ANKUR VERMA, DIRECTOR OF M/S ARTHA SOFTWARE PVT. LTD. & SH. VIKAS KADAM, DIRECTOR OF M /S CORPORATE NETWORK SOLUTION PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 4282/DEL/2017 CHETAN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. 3 5, THE A.R. OF THE COMPANY VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 20 .02.2015 CLAIMED THAT ADDRESSES OF ALL THESE ENTITIES HAS BEEN CHANG ED AND PROVIDED THEIR NEW ADDRESSES FOR THE FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE. 6. IN COMPLIANCE TO SUMMONS ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE CASES OF M/S MAGGOT IMPEX PVT. LTD., M/ S RATIONAL STEEL & ALLOYS PVT. LTD. & M/S ARTHA SOFTWARE PVT. LTD., DI RECTOR OF THE COMPANIES SH. SURAJ BHAN (MOB.[phone]) S/O LATE SH. CHANDE R SEN R/O D-20/4, GALI NO.3, KAMAR VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110094 FILED LETT ER DATED 20.02.2015. 7. STATEMENTS OF VIKAS KADAM, ANKUR VERMA WERE RECO RDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SH. SURAJ BHAN PROVIDED THE D ETAILS BY WAY OF A LETTER. IN CONCLUSION THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD TH AT THE COMPANIES DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT TAXABLE INCOME TO LEND THE ADVANCES . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIGHLIGHTED THE FOLLOWING POINTS WHILE MAKING THE A DDITION: I) IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY NOTEWORTHY THAT ALL THE ABO VE COMPANIES GIVEN ADVANCES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2011 IN F. Y. 2010-11 & JANUARY, 2012 IN F.Y. 2011-12. II) FURTHER, THESE COMPANIES HAD FILED MERELY THE E XTRACTS OF BANK STATEMENTS; IT WAS DIFFICULT TO DISCERN WHETHER THE SE COMPANIES HAD SUFFICIENT CREDITWORTHINESS TO MATCH THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ANOTHER VITAL FACT WHICH EMERGED FROM PERUSAL OF EXTRACTS O F THESE BANK STATEMENTS WAS REVELATION OF A COMMON TREND WHEREIN PRIOR TO EACH TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THESE COMPANIES HAD RECEIVED EXACTLY SAME AMOUNT OF FUNDS FROM SOME OTHER SOURCE ON THE SAME DATE, WHICH WAS THEN TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. III) THESE COMPANIES AUDITED BY THE COMMON AUDITOR I.E. M/S ANIL MEENU & COMPANY. IV) IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 24.11. 2014. V) IN THE STATEMENT OF SH. VIKAS KADAM STATED THAT HE IS DIRECTOR IN 2 COMPANIES NAMELY M/S CORPORATE NETWORK SOLUTION PVT . LTD. & M/S GAJANAN ITA NO. 4282/DEL/2017 CHETAN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. 4 REALCON PVT. LTD. BUT FROM ROC DATA HE HAS BEEN FOU ND DIRECTORS IN 6 MORE COMPANIES. VI) IN THE STATEMENT OF SH. ANKUR VERMA STATED THAT HE IS DIRECTOR IN ONE COMPANY NAMELY M/S ARTHA SOFTWARE PVT. LTD. BUT FRO M ROC DATA HE HAS BEEN FOUND DIRECTORS IN 11 MORE COMPANIES. VII) IN THE LETTER FILED BY SH. SURAJ BHAN STATED T HAT HE IS NOT CONNECTED WITH THE COMPANIES IN THE NAME OF M/S MAGGOT IMPEX PVT. LTD., M/S RATIONAL STEEL & ALLOYS PVT. LTD. AND M/S ARTHA SOFTWARE PVT. LTD. B UT FROM ROC DATA HE HAS BEEN FOUND DIRECTORS IN 12 COMPANIES. VIII) THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THESE COMPANIES HAS NOT FILED ANY COPY OF WRITTEN DOCUMENT SUCH AS AGREEMENT TO SALE / PURCHASE' FOR JUSTIFICATION OF ADVANCES RECEIVED AGAINST THE BOOKING OF SPACE. IX) SIMULTANEOUS CHANGE OF ADDRESS BY THESE INVESTO RS AS INTIMATED BY THE A.R. OF THE COMPANY VIDE LETTER DATED 20.02.2015. X) NOT A SINGLE INVESTOR HAS BEEN PROVIDED SPACE AN D THE ADVANCE HAS BEEN REFUNDED. XI) IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TH ERE IS INVENTORY OF RS. 1,16,13,561/- UNDER THE HEAD 'CURRENT ASSETS' AGAIN ST WHICH THE COMPANY HAS RAISED ADVANCES OF RS. 11.55 CRORE AS ON 31.03.2012 . XII) IN THE STATEMENT, SH. ANKUR VERMA STATED THAT IN M/S ARTHA SOFTWARE PVT. LTD., SH. SURAJ BHAN IS OTHER DIRECTOR OF THE COMPA NY WHICH HAS BEEN LATER DENIED BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY VIDE LETTER DAT ED 16.03.2015. 8. THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING THA T ALL THE SIX PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED MONEY OF RS.2,1 9,00,000/- DULY APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND FILED CONFIRMATIONS, COP IES OF THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS, COPIES OF THEIR BANK STATEMENTS, COPIE S OF THEIR BALANCE SHEETS AS REQUIRED BY THE AO. DIRECTORS OF TWO OF T HESE COMPANIES HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND GIVEN STATEMENTS AND CON FIRMED MAKING PAYMENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR BOOKING OF SPACE. IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT MONEY PAID BY THESE ENTITIES DURING THE FY 2011-12 ALONG WITH MONEY PAID DURING THE FY 2010-11 WAS REFUNDED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN A SHORT ITA NO. 4282/DEL/2017 CHETAN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. 5 PERIOD OF TIME AND EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF RECEIPT OF MONEY AND REFUND WERE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS OF RECEIPT OF MONEY AND REFUND THEREOF WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THESE PARTIES ARE REGULARLY FILING THEIR TAX RETURN S AND BALANCE SHEETS AND PROFIT & LOSS A/CS WITH ROC AND COPIES OF THESE WER E FILED BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS ME. DETAILS OF COMPANY MASTER DATA ON WEBSI TE OF ROC TO SNOW THAT THESE COMPANIES ARE LIVE COMPANIES AS REQUIRED BY ME WERE FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 9. THE LD. CIT (A) FURTHER HELD THAT IT IS A CASE O F MERE SUSPICION BY THE AO OF IT BEING A CASE OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THE A O HAS MADE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SIX EN TITIES BY RELYING ON INADEQUATE EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF DIRECTORS, WORKING PROFILES OF DIRECTORS, FACT OF THERE BEING NO MAJOR BUSINESS AC TIVITY DONE BY THESE INCOMES REPORTED BY THESE ENTITIES, BANK ACCOUNTS B EING IN ENTITIES, VERY LOW TURNOVERS AND SAME BANK AND BRANCH OF THESE ENT ITIES. THE AO HAS ALLEGED THAT IT IS A CASE OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN LIEU OF CASH. 10. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT, HOWEVER AO HA S FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE OF CASH EARNING OUTSIDE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITS DEPLOYMENT BACK IN BOOKS BY WAY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AS WELL AS REASONS FOR ITS REFUND IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THE AO HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE REFUND OF MONEY RECEI VED BY ASSESSEE WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME THAT TOO BEFORE THE A SSESSEES CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGG EST THAT ANY SEARCH OR SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON THESE ENTITIES RESULTING IN TO ANY FINDING BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OR DEPARTMENT OR ANY STATEMENT B EING RECORDED IN WHICH THESE ENTITIES HAVE ACCEPTED INDULGING INTO T HE BUSINESS OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY AO BY MAKING ANY INVESTIGATION OR INQUIRIES RESULTING INT O ANY INCRIMINATING ITA NO. 4282/DEL/2017 CHETAN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. 6 DOCUMENTS OR ANY STATEMENT BEING RECORDED IN WHICH THESE ENTITIES HAVE ACCEPTED INDULGING IN THE BUSINESS OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. NARRATING THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT ADDITIONS ARE TO BE MADE ON HARD FACTS OR ON CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES AND NOT ON SUSPICIONS, PRES UMPTIONS AND SURMISES. LD. CIT(A) RELIED ON THE JUDHEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. VS. CIT 26 I TR 775(SC), OMAR SALAY MOHD. SALT VS. CIT 37 ITR 151 (SC) AND LALCHA ND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM VS. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) WHERE IN IT WAS HELD TH AT THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MORE THAN MERE SUSPICION IN SUPPORT OF AN ASSESSMENT AND MERE SUSPICION CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE FOR THE PURPOS E OF PASSING AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. AS ALL SIX ENTITIES WHO PAID MONEY T O ASSESSEE HAD DULY APPEARED AND FILED DETAILS REQUIRED BY THE AO AND T ENDERED STATEMENTS ACCEPTING THAT THEY HAD ENTERED INTO TRANSACTIONS O F BOOKING OF SPACE AND PAID MONEY TO FIE ASSESSEE AND FILED DOCUMENTS EVID ENCING THEIR IDENTITIES, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS AN D EXPLAINED SOURCE OF MONEY PAID BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF T HE FACT THAT MONEY STANDS REFUNDED EVEN BEFORE THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WA S TAKEN UP FAR SCRUTINY, AND ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRON OUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON, IT WAS CONCLUDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AS CAST UPON IT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I NCOME TAX THAT ADDITION WAS WRONGLY MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. BEFORE US DURING THE HEARING THE LD .DR REITERA TED THE FACTS TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ARGUED THAT THE CASES ARE BEING AUDITED BY THE SAME AUDITOR AND THE COMPLAINTS TO NOTICE U/S 1 33(6) OF THE ACT WERE FILED ON THE SAME DATE. THE DIRECTORS APPEARED TO B E ON THE ROC DATA AS DIRECTORS OF SOME MORE COMPANIES ALSO. HE ARGUED TH AT THE DIRECTORS OF THESE COMPANIES ARE DUMMY DIRECTORS AND WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE MAIN ENTRY OPERATOR (PAGE NO. 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) . HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF NOVA PROMOTORS & FINLEA SE AND ARGUED THAT IN ITA NO. 4282/DEL/2017 CHETAN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. 7 VIEW OF THE LINK BETWEEN THE ENTRY PROVIDERS AND TH E INCRIMINATING MATERIAL MERELY FILING OF PAN, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INCOME TAX RETURNS OF THE ENTRY PROVIDER, BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS ETC. WAS NOT SUFF ICIENT TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ORDER DATED 22-11-2013 IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S N.R. PORTFOLIO P LTD., HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ME DOWELL & CO LIMITED 154 ITR- 148 ON THE ISSUE OF USING DUBIOUS MEANS BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR TAX EVASION. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. L.N. DALMIA IN 207 ITR 89 WHEREIN HELD THAT FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE TRANSACTION IS SHAM OR ILLUSORY OR A DEVICE OR A RUSE, THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ARE ENTITLED TO PENETRATE THE VEIL COVE RING IT AND ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH. ACCORDING TO THE COURT THE AUTHORITIES ARE E NTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY A ND TRUTH AND OTHER CASE LAWS AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 12. REBUTTING, THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT ALL THE DETAI LS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE AUTHORITIES ALONG WITH COPY OF THE BANK STATEME NT, ITR, REPLIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND ALL THE DIRECTORS HAVE ATTENDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND GIVE N THEIR STATEMENTS WHICH PROVES THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWO RTHINESS OF THE PARTIES. HE ARGUED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT ADVANCED B Y THE COMPANY FOR BOOKING SPACE IN COMMERCIAL BUILDING BEING CONSTRUC TED BY M/S NIDHI PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. IN DWARKA, NEW DELHI WAS OF RS. 12.22 CRORES AND THE COMPANY HAS RAISED ADVANCES OF RS.11.5 CRORES, OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUSPECTED ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.2. 19 CRORES AND MADE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY BASIS. HE AL SO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. HARSHILA CHORDIA VS ITO 298 ITR 349 (RAJ.), CIT VS MAHESH G. POMNANI IN ITA 900 OF 2009 (GUJ.) AND CIT VS PANCHAM DASS JAIN 156 TAXMAN 507 (ALL.). IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN REPAID IN A SHORT SPAN OF SIX MONTHS ITA NO. 4282/DEL/2017 CHETAN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. 8 EVEN BEFORE THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND EVEN BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN IN DUE TIME ALLOWED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. 13. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, THE FOLLOWING QUERIES HAVE BEEN EXAMINED: I. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.12.22 CRORES FOR BE BOOKING COMMERCIAL SPACE YES II. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN AMOUNT OF RS.11. 54 CRORES FROM VARIOUS PARTIES FOR SALE OF SPACE YES III. WHETHER THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RETURNED DUE TO NON- COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROJECT - YES IV. WHETHER SUCH REFUND HAS BEEN ISSUED EVEN BEFORE FIL ING OF THE RETURNS FOR THE YEAR IN BEFORE TAKING UP FOR SCRUTI NY YES V. WHETHER COMPLIANCE TO NOTICES U/S 133(6) HAVE BEEN MADE YES VI. WHETHER COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 131 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE DIRECTORS YES VII. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLEGED THAT THE DIRECTORS NA MELY MANISH KUMAR JAIN, SUMAN JAIN, ANKESH, RANJU RANI, ANKUR V ERMA, SURAJ BHAN, VIKAS KADAM AND RAJESH VERMA ARE OPERAT ING ON BEHALF OF MAIN ENTRY OPERATOR. IN THIS CONTEXT, WHE THER ANY DETAILS OF THE MAIN ENTRY OPERATOR HAS ALLEGED HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE NO VIII. WHETHER THIS ADVANCING OF LOAN IS TRACED TO ANY LIN K OR OUTCOME OF ANY ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OPERATION UNEARTHED BY THE DEPARTMENT NO IX. WHETHER ANY INFORMATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT REGARDI NG THE BOGUS NATURE OF THE ADVANCES NO X. WHETHER ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY INVESTIGAT ION WING, IF ANY, POINTED OUT ANY SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS WITH T HE ENTITIES RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE NO ITA NO. 4282/DEL/2017 CHETAN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. 9 XI. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY SUBSTANTIAL CORROBORATIVE EVI DENCE TO PROVE THE BOGUS NATURE OF THESE ADVANCES NO XII. WHETHER THE RATIO OF NOVA PROMOTERS REGARDING THE L INK BETWEEN THE ENTRY PROVIDER AND THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL E XISTS IN THE INSTANT CASE NO XIII. WHETHER THE COMPANIES WHICH HAVE ADVANCED BEEN STRI KE OFF FROM THE ROC NO XIV. WHETHER THE DIRECTORS ARE ALSO DIRECTORS IN OTHER C OMPANIES YES XV. WHETHER THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT THERE WERE NO AGREEMENTS FOR BOOKING OF THE SPACE IS CORRECT NO XVI. WHETHER THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT INVESTORS HAVE NOT PROVIDED SPACE AND ADVANCE HAVE BEEN REFUN DED IS CORRECT - YES XVII. WHETHER THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS CCE IS APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE NO 14. HENCE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE ENTIRE FACTS AND LEG AL PROPOSITION SPECIFIC TO THE INSTANT CASE AND SINCE, THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT REGARDING THE ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOOKING OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, WE HEREBY DECLINE TO INTERFERE WI TH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/02/2020. SD/- SD/- (H. S. SIDHU) (DR . B. R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER DATED: 04/02/2020 *SUBODH*