ACIT, Muzaffarnagar V. M/s. Ravi Organics Ltd., Muzaffarnagar

ITA 4483/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97296 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIVIKRAM SAHAY
• Keywords: Salary income; Source of fund; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove
• Section: 133(6); 131; 68

Judgement Text

ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4483/DEL /2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-2009 ACIT, CIRCLE-1, VS. M/S RAVI ORGANICS LTD. MUZAFFARNAGAR 19-A, NEW MANDI, MUZAFFARNAGAR (PAN AABCR 4274 M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING 5.8.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.09.2015 APPELLANT BY : SHRIVIKRAM SAHAY, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI M.P. RASTOGI, ADV. PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-MUZAFFARNAGAR DATED 29.06.2011 IN APPEAL NO. 220/2010-11/MZR/ FOR AY 2008-09. 2. THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,59,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF I.T. ACT, 196 1 AS UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO P ROVE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT BY IGNORING THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (214 ITR-801) AND HON BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH IN THE CASE OF KUSHAL PRASAD M ANHAR VS. ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 2 CIT, (2010) 236 CIT 192), WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FULL FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APP EAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CLOSELY HELD COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING A ND MARKETING OF PESTICIDES. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED RETURN OF IN COME ELECTRONICALLY ON 30.09.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.17,43,930/- . DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY INTRODUCED SHAR E CAPITAL OF RS.1,59,00,000/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y THROUGH COMPUTER ASSISTED SELECTION OF SCRUTINY (CASS) AND NOTICE U/S 143 (2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS ACT ONLY) WAS ISSUED. IN PURSUANT TO THE QUERIES RAISED IN SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED DETAILS OF SHARE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE INVESTO RS DURING THE YEAR WITH THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS, PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER (PAN ) A ND COPY OF BANK PASS BOOK, ETC.. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CALL ED FOR INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF RANDOMLY SELECTED 18 INVESTORS THROUGH NOTICE U/ S 133(6) OF THE ACT. THE NOTICES IN CASE OF 14 INVESTORS WERE SERVED THROUGH NOTICE SERVER AND IN CASE OF BALANCE FOUR (4), NOTICES WERE SENT THROUGH SPEED P OST WHICH RETURNED BACK WITH REMARK PERSON NOT RESIDING. IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN RESPONSE TO THOSE NOTICES ISSUED BY HIM, ONE PERSON FILED REPLY ON BEHALF OF ALL THE 14 INVESTORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO GATHER ED INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF THE INTRODUCERS OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS FROM THE UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OBTAINED ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 3 COPY OF THEIR BANK STATEMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OBSERVED FROM THE REPLY OF THE BANK THAT ACCOUNTS OF MOST OF THE INVESTORS WER E INTRODUCED BY ONE PERSON ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RECORDED STATEMENT OF THREE INVESTORS, NAMELY, SURESH PAL, ANIL KUMAR GUPTA AND ANIL KUMAR SHARMA AND HE INFERRED THAT THOSE INVESTORS WERE OF VERY LITTLE MEANS. HE FURTH ER INFERRED THAT IT WAS BEYOND COMPREHENSION THAT WHY A PERSON OF INSUFFICIENT MEA NS WOULD INVEST HUGE AMOUNT FOR MAKING RISK INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY WHICH WAS NEITHER A BLUE CHIP COMPANY NOR HAD SAFETY OF GOVERNMENT IN STRUMENT. IN VIEW OF THE OBSERVANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE AS SESSEE FAILED TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTORS AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTION OF SHARE INVESTMENT AND THEREFORE HE ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.1,59,00, 000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT TO THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEAL). THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIO NS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL) [IN SHORT CIT(A)], WHICH HAV E BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA 3 OF HIS ORDER. IN THE SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY EXPLAINED THAT BANK ACCOUNTS WERE OPENED BY THE OFFICER OF THE BANK TO MEET THEIR TARGET AND NOT BY ONE PERSON AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FURTHER CONTENDED THAT OUT OF RS.1,59,00,00 0/- INTRODUCED AS SHARE CAPITAL RS. 1,06,70,000 WAS RECEIVED BY INVESTORS F ROM ENCASHMENT OF THEIR LOAN, FIXED DEPOSITS ETC WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 4 CONTENDED THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN SHARE CA PITAL INTRODUCED WAS FULLY EXPLAINED. PURSUANT TO CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL), THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN REITERATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF SHARE HOLDERS. THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL) OBSERVED THAT IN 12 SHARE APPLICANTS THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IN SHARE CAPITAL VIS-A-VIS REFUND RECEIVED FROM THE AP PELLANT COMPANY OR INTRODUCTION OF FRESH CAPITAL. SINCE IN TWO SHARE I NVESTORS STATEMENTS WERE ALREADY RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT( A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE BALANCE 10 SHARE INVESTORS THROU GH SUMMON AND EXAMINE THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS ALSO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EX AMINED ALL SUCH SHARE INVESTOR AND SENT HIS REMAND REPORT ADMITTING THE G ENUINENESS OF THE INVESTORS. THE CIT(A) IN HIS PARA 3.1.1 HAS REPRODUCED THE REL EVANT PART OF REMAND REPORT DATED 23.05.2011 . 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL) AFTER CO NSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT TH E DISALLOWANCE OF THE SHARE CAPITAL OF RS. 1,59,00,000/- INVESTED IN THE ASSESS EE COMPANY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL) GRANTED RE LIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND CONCLUDED HIS FINDING AS UNDER: THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APP ELLANT AND REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O. HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE A.O. IN HIS REM AND ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 5 REPORT DATED 23-05-2011 MENTIONED THAT ALL SHARE APPLICANTS AS REQUIRED BY THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 24-04- 2011 WERE RECORDED EXCEPT SMT. RATAN DEVI AND SH. D .S. DHAKA COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BECAUSE OF OLD AGE AND SICKNESS. HOWEVER, AFFIDAVITS IN RESPECT OF THE SAM E HAVE BEEN FILED. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE A.O. THAT ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS ADMITTED TO HAVE MADE INVESTMENT I N SHARES WITH THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE A.O. HAS FUR THER GIVEN A CHART EXPLAINING SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS ANNEXVRE-A WHICH IS NOT REPEALE D HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY T HE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT SOME PART OF THE AMOUNT WAS THE OUTCOME/INCOME OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THEM WITH THE APPELLANT COMPANY WHICH HAD BEEN RECEIVED BACK BY T HEM DURING THE YEAR OF INVESTMENT IN SHARE HOLDINGS. TH E AMOUNT WAS KEPT IN THE FORM OF FD WITH THE APPELLAN T COMPANY SOME YEARS BACK AND THE COMPLETE AMOUNT ALO NG WITH INTEREST HAD BEEN RECEIVED BACK BY THEM. THE B ALANCE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF CURRENT YEAR INCOME/ACCUMULATED AMOUNTS. THUS THE CREDITORS ARE CREDITWORTHY AND THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN SHARE STANDS EXPLAINED. ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE EXISTING ASSESS EE IN THE INCOME TAX OFFICE AND REGULARLY FILING THEIR RETURN OF INCOME AND COPIES OF ITRS HAVE BEEN FILED. THUS THE SHARE APPLICANTS ARE IDENTIFIABLE PERSONS BEING ASSESSED TO TAX. THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE SINCE THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. COPIES OF B ANK ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN FILED WHICH REFLECTS THE TRANSAC TIONS. WHAT IS RELEVANT IS THE IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. ALL THESE THREE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN BEYOND DOUBT BEEN ESTABLISHED AND TO THAT EXTENT ONUS OF THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT HAS BEEN DISCHARGED. ON THE BASIS OF THE REMAND REPORT OF TH E A.O. IT CAN SAFELY BE HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS AMPLY PRO VED AND DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN BY FILING THE NECESSARY RELEV ANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF SHARE APPLICATI ON MONEY RECEIVED. THE APPELLANT HAS CITED CASE LAWS O F HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION AGAINST ADDITION MADE U/S 68 WHICH ARE A LL IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 6 6. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE SOLE GROUND AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES WERE HEARD AND WE ALSO PERUSED ALL RELEVANT M ATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (D R) RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER REFERRED PAGE 8 AND 2 53 OF THE PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE AND ARGUED THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT W AS NOT FULLY EXPLAINED BY THE INVESTORS AS IN NUMBER OF CASES AMOUNT OF INVESTMEN T WAS MORE THAN THE MONEY RECEIVED BACK FROM ENCASHMENT OF FIXED DEPOSIT/ LOA NS ETC . HE ALSO ARGUED THAT IN SOME CASES CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUN T OF THE INVESTOR IMMEDIATELY BEFORE MAKING FURTHER PAYMENT FOR INVES TMENT IN THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING O FFICER HIMSELF IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS ACCEPTED THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORT HINESS AND GENUINENESS OF IMPUGNED THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO A CCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARES INVESTMENT, THE CONTENTION OF THE REVEN UE DOES NOT HOLD GROUND. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE INCOME-TAX AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT), AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S KAISER CONST RUCTIONS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS IN ITA NO. 211 & 212/AGR/2012. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM BARE READING OF IMPUGNED ORDER ITS AMPLE CLEAR THAT IN ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 7 THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS E XAMINED THE INVESTORS AND ACCEPTED THE IDENTITY & CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHA RE APPLICANTS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE R EMAND REPORT AND AFTER SATISFYING FROM ALL THE RECORDS AND THE REMAND REPO RT ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT ALL THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SHARES OF THE COMPAN Y WAS FOUND TO BE GENUINE AND THEREFORE, HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,59,0 0,000/-. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTE D GENUINENESS OF THE INVESTORS AFTER SUMMONING AND EXAMINING THEIR SOURC E OF INVESTMENT, BANK TRANSACTIONS ETC. EVEN THOUGH IN REMAND PROCEEDING, BURDEN OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS STANDS DISCHARGED. THE IDENT ITY OF THE INVESTORS WAS NOT EVEN DISPUTED BY THE LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE. THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT HAS BEEN EXAMINED IN DETAIL BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER AS WELL BY THE CIT(A) AND NOTHING ADVERSE HAS BEEN NOTED BY BOTH A UTHORITIES. FURTHER THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT THROUGH BANK AND NO INFIRMITY HAS BEEN FOUND IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SATISFIED ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR PROVING THE GENUINESS OF CASH CREDITS. 9. FURTHER, WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE ALLEGATI ON OF THE LD. DR BECOMES BASELESS AS MERE INTRODUCTION OF A GROUP OF ACCOUNT HOLDERS TO BANK BY A SINGLE PERSON DOES NOT RAISE ANY DOUBT ABOUT THEIR CREDITW ORTHINESS AS THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT THE OPENING OF A BANK ACCOUNT WAS I NTENDED TO INTRODUCE ASSESSEES OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY/INCOME IN THE GARB OF SHARE APPLICATION ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 8 MONEY. WE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACTUM THAT MAJOR SHAR E OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS SOURCED BY THE RESPECTIVE CONTRIBUTORS OU T OF MONEY/FUNDS RECEIVED ON REALISATION AND MATURITY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE FIX ED DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE 10 APPLICANTS CASE WERE EXAMI NED BY THE AO ON SAMPLE BASIS WHEREIN IT WAS FOUND THAT ONLY IN TWO CASES O F SHRI ANIL AGRAWAL AND SHRI DHARAMVEER SINGH DHAKA A MINOR CASH AMOUNT OF RS.25 00 AND RS.45,500 (23500 + 22000) RESPECTIVELY HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN CASH AND IN ALL CASES PAN NOS. OF CONTRIBUTORS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED AND IT IS ALSO NOT A CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE INTRODUCED ITS OWN UN ACCOUNTED INCOME OR MONEY EARNED OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THROUGH SHARE APPL ICATION MONEY CONTRIBUTORS. IN THIS CHART PREPARED BY THE AO DURING REMAND PROC EEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI DHAKA CASH WAS DEPOSITED AGAINS T INCOME FROM SALARY. 10. LD. DR HAS ALSO SUBMITTED A TABULAR CHART S HOWING DETAILS REGARDING TEN SHARE APPLICANTS TO RAISE A DOUBT ABOUT THEIR CAPAC ITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF D.S. DHAKA, SMT. KUS UM LATA, SMT. NEELAM GOEL, SHRI NEERAJ GARG, RAJEEV KUMAR, THERE WAS CASH DEPO SIT OF RS.45,500, RS.80,000, RS.1.14 LAKH, RS. 1 LAKH AND RS.1.42 LAK H RESPECTIVELY AND THEREFORE THIS IS A CASE OF FICTITIOUS SHARE APPLICATION MONE Y CONTRIBUTION. LD. DR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT AS PER THEIR STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, INCOME/BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURN OF INCOME, THEY HAVE VERY SMALL SOURCES OF INCOME BUT THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED HUGE MONEY, THEREF ORE, THE REMAND REPORT OF ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 9 THE AO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SACROSANCT EVIDENCE SU PPORTING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REJOI NDER HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RS.1, 59,00,000 WHEREIN THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,06,70,000 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ALLEGE D INVESTORS FROM THEIR FIXED DEPOSITS ETC. WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE AUT HORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT RAISED ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THIS AMOUNT. 11. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT MERELY BEC AUSE SHARE APPLICANTS ARE EMPLOYEES OR RELATIVES OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCO UNTED MONEY BY WAY OF SHARE APPLICATION CONTRIBUTION. LD. COUNSEL VEHEM ENTLY CONTENDED THAT PER CONTRA, FOR A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, IT IS OBVIOU S THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL IS RAISED ON BEHALF OF COMPANY ON THE BASIS OF FINANCI AL AND WORKING REPUTATION O THE COMPANY FROM RELATED PERSONS SUCH AS EMPLOYEES, FRIENDS AND RELATIVES OF THE DIRECTORS AND OTHER SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY AND NO DOUBT CAN BE RAISED ABOUT THE CAPACITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE SH ARE APPLICATION MONEY CONTRIBUTORS. LD. COUNSEL ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS CASE, CONFUSION AROSE BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF FRAMING ASSESSMENT, AT THE T IME OF SUBMITTING REMAND REPORT BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND AT THE TIME OF FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT ASSESSING OFFI CERS HAVING DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW BUT THE DETAILS AND ORIGINAL ANALYSIS SUBMI TTED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT PLACED AT PAGES 263 TO 310 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 10 THAT THE APO APPLIED THE ENDEAVOURS AND MIND FOR P ROPER ANALYSIS OF THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND SUBMITTED A FORTIFIED UNREBUTTED CONCLUSION THAT IN THE STATEM ENT/AFFIDAVIT, ALL THE PERSONS/SHAREHOLDERS ADMITTED ABOUT HAVING THE INVE STMENT/PURCHASE OF SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. LD. COUNSEL POINTED OUT T HAT THE AO SUBMITTED A CORRECT REMAND REPORT STATING THAT ALL THE PERSONS ARE EXISTING ASSESSES, THEIR ADMISSION AND CONTENTION APPEARS TO BE CORRECT AND COPIES OF THE STATEMENT/ITRS OF FOUR YEARS AS A PROOF OF INCOME TAX ASSESSEE, CO PIES OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE RELEVANT YEAR AND PAN NO. WERE ALSO ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE REMAND REPORT WHICH FURTHER SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO IN THE SAID REMAND REPORT. 12. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS, AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE AO SUBMITTED REMAND REPORT DATED 2 5.3.11 OF THE CIT(A) BY SUBMITTING AS UNDER:- SIR, SUBJECT: REMAND REPORT U/S 250(4) OF THE I.T ACT196 1-A. NO. 220/10-11/MZR IN THE CASE OF M/S RAVI ORGANICS LIMITED. 19-A, NEW MANDI, MZR FOR A.Y 2008-09 REGARDING- KINDLY REFER TO YOUR OFFICE LETTER F. NO. REMAND RE PORT /CIT(A)- MZR 2011-12 DATED 26/04/2011 ON THE SUBJECT MENTION ED ABOVE. IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SUMMONS U/S 13 1 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 WERE ISSUED TO ALL THE PERSONS MENTIONED I N THE LETTER CAPTIONED ABOVE. STATEMENTS OF ALL THE PERSONS WER E RECORDED AND ALL THE PERSONS HAVE ADMITTED OF INVESTMENTS IN SHARES OF M/S RAVI ORGANICS LIMITED, MUZAFFARNAGAR. THE MAIN CONTENTS ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 11 OF THE STATEMENTS ARE DETAILED IN THE FORM OF A CHA RT AS ANNEXURE A. DURING THE RECORDINGS OF STATEMENTS IT WAS NOTICED THAT SOME PART OF THE AMOUNT IS THE OUTCOME/INCOME OF INVESTM ENT MADE BY THEM WITH M/S RAVI ORGANICS LIMITED, MUZAFFARNAG AR WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK BY THEM DURING THE YEAR OF I NVESTMENT IN SHARE HOLDINGS WITH THE COMPANY. THE AMOUNT WAS KE PT IN THE FORM OF FD WITH THE COMPANY SOME YEARS BACK AND THE COMPLETE AMOUNT ALONG WITH INTEREST HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK B Y THEM. IN THE MEANTIME THEY CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY AND THEY INVESTED THE COMPLETE AMOUNT IN S HARES. ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE EXISTING ASSESSEE IN THE INCOM E TAX OFFICE, MUZAFFARNAGAR AND REGULARLY FILING THEIR RETURN OF INCOME. COPIES OF ITR FOR A.Y 2007-08 RELEVANT TO A.Y 2008- 09, A.Y 2007- 08, 2006-07 AND A. Y 2010-11 HAVE BEEN OBTAINED IN RESPECT OF ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS. AS FAR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT IS CONCERN ED, THE SHAREHOLDERS CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENT THE CURRENT YEAR INCOME/ACCUMULATED AMOUNT OF THEIR REGULAR BUS INESS INCOME WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK IN CASH AND THE SAME WAS INVESTED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL IN THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY. STATEMENT OF SMT. RATAN DEVI WAS NOT RECORDED AS S HE HAS UNDERGONE HEART TREATMENT AT A HOSPITAL IN GURGAON. SHE IS 92 YEARS OLD. AN AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH MEDICAL PAPERS AND RELEVANT ITRS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF SMT. RATAN DEVI. SHE IS MOTHER OF SHRI DEVENDER GARG WHO IS ONE OF T HE DIRECTOR OF COMPANY. STATEMENT OF ANOTHER PERSON SHRI DHARAMVE ER SINGH DHAKA COULD ALSO NOT BE RECORDED. HIS SON SHRI SUR ESH PAL ATTENDED ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT FROM HIS FATHER AND A LSO COPIES OF ITRS HAVE BEEN FILED BY HIM SHRI DHAKA IS 86 YEARS OLD AND COULD NOT MOVE AS STATED BY HIS SON SHRI SURESH PAL. STATEMENTS OF SHRI ANIL GUPTA AND SHRI ANIL SHARMA . DIRECTOR OF M/S BLUD DIAMOND INDUSTRIES LIMITED WERE RECORDED A T THE TIME ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THEIR STATEMENTS BOTH A DMITTED OF HAVING SHARES OF THE COMPANY M/S RAVI ORGANICS LIMI TED, MUZAFFARNAGAR. AS DIRECTED BY YOUR GOOD SELF, A RE QUEST WAS ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 12 MADE TO AMMCO BANK, MUZAFFARNAGAR TO FURNISH CERTAI N INFORMATION ALONG WITH COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT. COPIE S OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM AMMCO BANK IS ENCLOSED AL ONG WITH THE REPORT WHICH IS SELF EXPLANATORY. IN THE STATEMENTS/AFFIDAVITS ALL THE PERSONS/SHARE HOLDERS ADMITTED ABOUT HAVING THE INVESTMENTS/PURCHASE OF S HARES OF THE COMPANY. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE BALANC E INVESTMENT IS FROM BUSINESS/SALARY INCOME EARNED BY THEM FROM THE RELEVANT CURRENT YEAR AND EARLIER YEARS. IT MA Y ALSO BE POINTED OUT THAT THE LADIES (EXCEPT SMT. KUSUM LATA ) ARE CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. AS ALL THE PERSONS ARE EXISTING ASSESSES, THEIR ADMISSION AND CONTENTION A PPEARS TO BE CORRECT. COPIES OF STATEMENTS, ITRS OF 4 YEARS AS PROOF OF INCOME TAX ASSESSES COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE RELEVANT YEAR AND PAN ARE ENCLOSED ALONGWITH THIS REPLY. REPORT SUBMITTED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. 13. NOW, WE PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE RATIO OF THE DECISI ON OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN INCOME TA X DEFECTIVE APPEAL NO.92 OF 2013 DATED 29.8.2013 WHEREIN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE U/S 260-A OF THE ACT ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF ITAT AGRA BENCH D ATED 22.2.2013 IN ITA NO. 211 & 212/AGRA/2012 IN RESPECT OF AY 2006-07 HAS BE EN DISMISSED CONFIRMING THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBUNAL FAVOURING THE ASSESS EE. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER (SUPRA) READS AS UNDER:- 12. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CREDITO RS, WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE DOCUMEN T FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONTAINING COPY OF BANK STATEMENT AND CONF IRMATION AND THE A.O. DID NOT DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THO SE PARTIES. THE A.O. HIMSELF RECORDED THE FACT IN THE REMAND RE PORT THAT HE HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE STATEMENT OF ALMOST ALL THE C REDITORS RECORDED ON 27.12.2010 EXCEPT CREDITOR FOR THE AMOU NT OF ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 13 RS.40,998/-. WHEN THE A.O. HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE GEN UINENESS OF THE CREDITORS BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN THE REMAND REPOR T AND THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,25,69,815/-. THE RE VENUE HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL TO THE FI NDING OF CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWED AMOUNT AS WELL AS ON ACCOU NT OF CREDITORS BEING THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 14. WE ALSO RESPECTFULLY CONSIDER THE DICTA LAID DO WN BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.4.15 IN ITA 467/2 014 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ANSHIKA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHER RELATED APP EALS WHEREIN REFERRING TO THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. 216 CTR 295(SC), IT WAS HELD THAT THE OBJECTIV E OF SECTION 68 IS TO AVOID INCLUSION OF AMOUNT WHICH ARE SUSPECT AND WHEN THE AO ACTED LEGITIMATELY IN ACQUIRING THE MATTER, THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY HIM WA S NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE SHARE APPLICANTS PARTICULARS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO IN THE FORM OF BALANCE SHEETS INCOME TA X RETURNS, PAN DETAILS ETC.. THE TRUE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS, THEIR CR EDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WHICH ARE BASED ON SOUND REASONI NG DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PART OF THIS ORDER OF HONBLE HIGH CORUT OF DELHI READS AS UNDER:- 5. THE ITAT ALSO NOTED THAT THE BALANCE SHEETS OF T HE INVESTORS SHOWED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE POS SESSED OF CONSIDERABLE MEANS AND HAD BEEN EXISTING FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME PRIOR TO THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION. THE ITAT REASONED AS FOLLOWS: ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 14 10. ON AN ANALYSIS OF THESE RECORDS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS ABLE TO LAY ITS HANDS ON THE ADDRESS ES OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS AND WHERE THE SHARE APPLICANTS ARE ASSESSED. THESE COMPANIES ARE EXISTING FROM LONG PERIOD. THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE SHARE C APITAL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE NEXT ASPECT IS THEIR CREDITWO RTHINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BALANCE SHEET OF ALL THE INVESTO RS. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT IN THE CASE OF MANUSH MARK ETING PVT LTD., THERE WERE SUNDRY DEBTORS OF 1187,50,000 AS ON 31.3.2005. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THESE WERE REALIZED BY T HE SAID INVESTORS AND INVESTED A SUM OF 129,75,000 IN A.R. LEASING PVT. LTD. SIMILARLY, OTHER INVESTMENTS ARE MADE IN THE O THER COMPANIES. IN THE CASE OF SHRI MAHABIR MANAGEMENT S ERVICES, IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS CONCERN HAD INVESTMENT OF 1186,00,080 AS ON 31.3.2005.IT HAD LOAN AND ADVANCE S OF 1179,50,000 WHICH WERE REALIZED DURING THE YEAR AND 2 CRORES WAS INVESTED IN THE A.R. LEASING PVT LTD. IN THE CA SE OF STAR PLEAT VINCOM, THE SUNDRY DEBTORS AS ON 31.3.2005 ARE OF R S. 1120,00,000. THESE WERE REALIZED AND A SUM OF . 3.99 CRORES WAS INVESTED IN THE A.R. LEASING. THUS, THE COMPANI ES HAVE SUFFICIENT BALANCE IN THEIR BALANCE SHEETS IN THE S HAPE OF INVESTMENT AS WELL LOAN AND ADVANCES. THESE COMPANI ES ARE EXISTING MORE THAN 10 YEARS. LEARNED DIT HAS ALSO V ERIFIED THIS ASPECT AND DID NOT REPORT ANY PARTICULAR IRREGULARI TY. THE NEXT ISSUE IS ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT. ALL THE S HARE APPLICATION MONEY HAVE BEEN ISSUED THROUGH BAKING C HANNEL. THE ADIT, CALCUTTA HAS POINTED OUT THAT THESE COMPANIES WERE STILL HOLDING THE SHARE I.E. ON DECEMBER 2007. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, WE ENQUIRED ABOUT THE PRESENT STATUS OF TH ESE COMPANIES AS WELL AS POSITION OF INVESTMENT. THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE DETAILS OF SHAREH OLDING PATTERN AS ON 31.3.2013, IT REVEALS THAT THESE COMPANIES AR E STILL KEEPING THE SHARES OF THE RESPONDENT. SHRI MAHABIR MANAGEME NT IS KEEPING 10,000 SHARE AND BHUVANIA BROTHERS IS HOLDI NG 12,590 SHARE IN M/S ANSHIKA CONSULTANTS PVT LTD. SIMILARLY , IN ANANT OVERSEAS, BHUVANIA BROTHERS IS HOLDING 12,000 SHARE S, STAR PLEAT VINCOM IS HOLDING 14,700 SHARES. IN FLEX INTE RNATIONAL, SHRI MAHABIR MANAGEMENT SERVICES IS HOLDING 37210 S HARES. THOUGH THESE DETAILS WERE NOT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND COULD NOT BE BECAUSE THIS IN THE SHAREHOLDING PATTE RN AS ON 31.3.20 13, THESE WERE REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 15 QUERY AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE THAT THESE SHARE APP LICANT COMPANIES ARE NOT ONLY PROPER ENTITIES. THEY ARE IN EXISTENCE.' 6. THE ONUS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT TO SATISFY THE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE TRUE IDENTITY OF A N INVESTOR, ITS CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF A TRANSACTION W AS EXPLAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD., 216 CTR 295,. WHILST, THE AO ACTED LEGITIMATELY IN ENQU IRING INTO THE MATTER, THE INFERENCES DRAWN BY HIM WERE NOT JUSTIF IED AT ALL IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CHARGED A HIGHER PREMIUM OR NOT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BE EN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ENQUIRY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE . INSTEAD, THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER THE AMOUNT INVESTED BY THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE FROM LEGITIMATE SOURCES. THE OBJECTIVE OF SECTION 68 IS TO AVOID INCLUSION OF AMOUNT WHICH ARE SUSPECT. THEREF ORE, THE EMPHASIS ON GENUINENESS OF ALL THE THREE ASPECTS, I DENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE TRANSACTION. WHAT IS DISQU IETING IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED O N 31.12.2007, THE INVESTIGATION REPORT WHICH WAS SPEC IFICALLY CALLED FROM THE CONCERNED DEPARTMENT IN KOLKATA WAS AVAILABLE BUT NOT DISCUSSED BY THE AO. HAD HE CARED TO DO SO, THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTORS, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIO N AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS WOULD HAVE BEEN APPARENT. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE SHARE APPLICANTS' PAR TICULARS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO IN THE FORM OF BALANCE SHEETS INCOME TAX RETURNS, PAN DETAILS ETC. WHILE ARRIVING AT THE CON CLUSION THAT HE DID, THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER IT WORTHWHILE TO MAKE ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY BUT BASED HIS ORDER ON THE HIGH NATURE OF T HE PREMIUM AND CERTAIN FEATURES WHICH APPEARED TO BE SUSPECT, TO DETERMINE THAT THE AMOUNT HAD BEEN ROUTED FROM THE ASSESSEE'S ACCOUNT TO THE SHARE APPLICANTS' ACCOUNT. AS HELD CONCURRENTLY BY THE CIT (APPEALS) AND THE ITAT, THESE CONCLUSIONS WERE CLEA RLY BASELESS AND FALSE. THIS COURT IS CONSTRAINED TO OBSERVE THA T THE AO UTTERLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH HIS DUTY CONSIDERS AL L THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, IGNORING SPECIFICALLY THE MOST CRUCIAL D OCUMENTS. WE PLACE THESE OBSERVATIONS ON THE RECORD AND DIRECT A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT TO BE FURNISHED TO THE CONCERNED INCOME TA X AUTHORITIES FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION TOWARDS REFLECTING THESE OBS ERVATIONS SUITABLY IN SERVICE RECORD OF THE CONCERNED AO TO A VOID SUCH INSTANCES IN THE FUTURE. 7. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THIS COURT IS OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT, AS TO THE TRUE IDENTIT Y OF THE SHARE ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 16 APPLICANTS, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, ARE BASED ON SOUND REASONING AND DO NO T CALL FOR INTERFERENCE. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES . THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 15. IN VIEW OF RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S KAISER CONSTRUC TION & ENGINEERS (SUPRA) WHEN WE ANALYZE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT I S AMPLY CLEAR THAT DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE AO RECORDED THE FINDING THA T ALL THE PERSONS VIZ. SHARE APPLICATION CONTRIBUTORS ARE EXISTING ASSESSES AND THEIR ADMISSION AND CONTENTION APPEARS TO BE CORRECT. AFTER CONSIDERING REMAND R EPORT DATED 23.5.11, AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE, THE CIT(A) IN THE FIRST APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER HELD THAT THE SHARE APPL ICANTS ARE IDENTIFIABLE PERSONS BEING ASSESSED TO TAX, THE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE SINCE THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, C OPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN FILED WHICH ALSO REFLECTS THE TRANSACTION . THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALSO HELD THAT FOR THE ISSUE IN QUESTION WHAT IS RE LEVANT IS THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND CAPACITY OF THE INVESTOR/SHARE APPLICANTS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND ALL THESE CONDITIONS HAVE BE EN ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT AND TO THAT EXTENT, ONUS OF THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT, CAST U/S 68 OF THE ACT, STANDS DISCHARGED. WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AS THE MAIN BASIS OF DELETI ON OF IMPUGNED ADDITION AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AMPLY PROVED AND HAS DIS CHARGED THIS ONUS OR BURDEN ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 17 TO PROVE THESE REQUIREMENTS BY FILING THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ALLEGED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVE D BY IT. 16. ON THE BASIS OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE REACH TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND OTHER RELEVANT AND SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE AND DOCU MENTS AND THE CIT(A) ALSO CONSIDERED SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CORRECTLY REACHED TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS CAST UPON H IM U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTORS, ALONG W ITH THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND IT IS NOT THE CASE OF SCRUTINY AT THE INSTANCE OF INVESTIGATION WING OR A NY OTHER REVENUE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. 17. FINALLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF TH E DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S KAISER CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERS (SUPRA) ABOUT THE ACCEPTABILITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE REMAND REP ORT FAVORING THE ASSESSEE AND JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS LOVELY EXPORT (P) LTD. (SUPRA) AND JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ANSHIKA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT IN THE EXTANT CASE THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTORS, GENUINEN ESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF SUBMISSION OF PARTICULARS OF THE SHARE AP PLICANTS ALONG WITH COPIES OF THE BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT, INCO ME TAX REPORTS AND PAN ITA 4483/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 18 DETAILS ETC. AND THE ONUS WAS SHIFTED ON THE AO TO DEMOLISH THESE SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS. 18. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO MENTIO N THAT THE AO HIMSELF IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 23.5.11 CONCLUDED THAT ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS ARE EXISTING ASSESSES AND THE CONTENTION/EXPLANATION IN REGARD T O THE IMPUGNED CONTRIBUTION APPEARS TO BE CORRECT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE UN ABLE TO SEE ANY AMBIGUITY, PERVERSITY, OR ANY OTHER VALID REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, SOLE GROUND OF TH E REVENUE BEING DEVOID OF MERITS IS DISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16. 09.2015 SD/- SD/- (R.S.SYAL) (C.M. GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 GS/*KAVITA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI