INCOME TAX OFFICER,6 (1)(2), MUMBAI V. AMIRASHMI FINSTOCK PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

ITA 4558/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4365 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MICHAEL JERALDLD
• Assessee Lawyers: NEERAJ MANGLA LD
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 201; 143(2); 13; 22; 148; 68

Judgement Text

M/S. AMIRASHMI FINSTOCK P RIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR S :201 0 - 11 & 2011 - 12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANO J KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFER ENCING MODE) ./ I TA NOS. 4558 - 4559 / MU M/ 201 7 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 201 0 - 11 & 2011 - 12 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER - 6( 1 )( 2 ) ROOM NO.5 08 , 5 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 400 020. / VS. M/S. AMIRASHMI FINSTOCK P RIVATE L TD. 205, KAILASH PLAZA, VALLABH BAUG LANE GHATKOPAR (E) MUMBAI - 400 0 77 . ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAICA - 2050 - R ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) & C.O. NO S .30 5 - 306 /MUM/2 018 (ARISING OUT OF I TA NOS. 455 8 - 4559 /MU M/201 7 ) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 ) M/S. AMIRASHMI FINSTOCK P RIVATE L TD. 205, KAILASH PLAZA, VALLABH BAUG LANE GHATKOPAR (E) MUMBAI - 400 0 77 . / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 6( 1 )( 2 ) ROOM NO.5 08 , 5 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 400 020. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAICA - 2050 - R ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NEERAJ MANGLA, LD. AR REVENUE BY : SHRI MICHAEL JERALD - LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 12/10/2020 / DAT E OF PRO NOUNCEMENT : 22/10 /2020 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. THE REV ENUE I S UNDER APPEAL AGAINST SEPARATE AP PELLATE ORDERS FOR ASSESSM ENT YEARS (AY) 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 BOTH DATED 17/04/2017 . IT IS M/S. AMIRASHMI FINSTOCK P RIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR S :201 0 - 11 & 2011 - 12 2 ADM ITTED POSITION THAT F ACTS ARE PAR I - MATERI A THE SAME IN BOTH THE YEARS AND ADJUDICATION IN ANY ONE YEAR WOULD EQUALLY APPLY TO OTHER YEAR AL SO AND THEREFO RE, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE NOW BEING DISPOSED - OFF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOL IDATE D ORDER FO R THE SA KE OF CONVENIENCE AND BRE VITY. 2 . THE REVENUE S APPEAL F OR AY 2010 - 11 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) - 12, MUMBAI [CIT(A)], APPEAL NO. CIT(A) - 12/ITO - 6(1)(2)/369/15 - 16 ON FOLL OWING GROUNDS : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW, THE L D. CIT(A ) ERRED IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS.1,95,00,000/ - U/S. 68 OF THE ACT, ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW, TH E LD. CIT( A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 ,95,00,000/ - BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY/SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM FROM M/S. ADVANCE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. PRABHAV INDUSTRIES LTD. AND YANTRA NATURAL R ESOURCES L TD. , WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FAC T THAT N EITHER THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNT N OR THE CREDITWORTHI N ESS OF THE A BOVE COMPANIES HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD . CIT(A) E RRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT MR . SHIRISH C. SHAH, IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT, STATED THAT THE ABOVE LISTED COMPANIES ARE MANAGED AND CONTROLLED BY HIM AND HE HAD USED THESE COMPANIES FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMODA TION ENTRI ES OF SHARE CAPITAL/PREMIUM, SHAR E APPLIC ATION AND UNSECURED LO ANS. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS TH AT THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(APPEALS) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. AS EVID E NT, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED B Y DELETION OF CERTAIN ADDI TION U/S 68 AS MA DE BY LD . A O IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. 3 . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE (AR) , AT THE OUTSET , SUBMITTED THAT SIMI LAR ADDI T IONS MADE BY LD. AO IN AY 2012 - 13 BUT DELETED BY LD. C IT ( A) , WERE UNDE R CHAL LENG E BY REVENUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE IT A NO . 3164/MUM/2017 OR DER DAT ED 30/ 0 1/2019 . THE COOR DINATE BENCH , IN THE SAID ORDER, SET - ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER AND RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR DE NOVO ASSESS MENT. PURS UANT TO THE SAME, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT WAS FRA MED BY L D. AO VIDE OR DER DATED 30/12/2019 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATED THE M/S. AMIRASHMI FINSTOCK P RIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR S :201 0 - 11 & 2011 - 12 3 FULFILMENT OF PRIMARY INGREDIENTS OF SEC. 68 AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE BY L D. AO. THEREFORE, THESE BEI NG THE EARLIER YEARS AN D FACTS B EING IDENT ICAL , THE ADDI TIONS WOULD NOT BE SUSTAINA BLE AND THE APPELLAT E ORDER WOULD REQUIRE NO INTERFERENCE O N THE FAC T S AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE COPIES OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR AY 2012 - 13 AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT F RAMED CONSEQUENT THERE T O HAVE BE EN PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE (D R ) , SHRI M I CH AEL JERALD, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTOR PARTIES W ERE DIFFERENT IN AY 2012 - 13 AND THEREFORE, THE SAID ASSESSMENT COU LD NO T FORM THE BASIS TO CONFIRM THE DELETION OF ADDITIONS. 4 .1 W E HAVE CAREFULLY HE ARD RIV AL SUBMI S SIONS AND PERUSED REL EVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING DO CUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER - BOOK. THE FACTS ON RECORD WOULD SHOW THAT AN ASSESSMENT WAS FR AMED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 ON 17/ 02/2016 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS SADDLED WITH ADDITION OF UNEXP LAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 FOR RS.195 LA CS. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE TRIGGERE D DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS F O R AY 2012 - 13 , WHEREIN IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSES SEE RECEIV ED HUGE SHARE PREMIUM OF RS.1 95 L ACS DURI NG FY 2009 - 10 FROM 3 P ARTIES VIZ. (I) AVANCE TECHNOLOGI ES LTD.; (II) PRABHAV INDUSTRIES LTD. ; (III) YANTRA NATURAL RES OURCES LTD. (EARLIE R K NOWN AS GANES H SPINNERS LTD.). 4 .2 TO EXAMINE TH E SAID RECEIPTS, THE ASSES SEE WAS SUBJECTED TO REASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS AND A NOTICE U /S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 10 /04/201 5. THE STATU TORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 14 2(1 ) WERE ISSUED AS PER DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN DUE COURSE OF TIME WHE REIN THE ASSESSEE WAS , M/S. AMIRASHMI FINSTOCK P RIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR S :201 0 - 11 & 2011 - 12 4 INTER - ALIA, DIRECTED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AS WELL AS CREDITWORTHI NESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS & ALSO TH E GENUINENESS OF THE TRA NSACTIONS. 4 .3 IN RESPONSE , THE ASSESSEE FILED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS VIZ . FORM - 2 - RETURN OF SHARE ALLOTMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGISTRAR OF COMPANI ES (ROC) , DETAILS OF ENTITIES TO WHO M THE SHARES WE RE ALLOTTED AND COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE FROM COMPANY SECRETARY RE GAR DING SHARE ALLOTMENT COMPLIANCES . TO PR OVE THE IDENTITY , GENUINENESS & CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE 3 INVESTOR ENTITIES, THE ASSESSEE FILED CO P IES OF SHA RE APPLICATION FORMS , RELE VANT EXTR ACTS F ROM BANK STATE M ENTS OF 3 ENTITIES SHOWING MOVEMENT OF FUNDS FROM BANKING CHANNELS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPIES OF BOARD RESO LUTIONS PASSED BY RESPECTIVE INVESTOR ENTITI ES AUTHORIZING THEM TO MA KE THE A F ORESAID IN VESTMENT. FURTHER , THE ASS ESSEE ALSO FILE D COPIES OF INC OME TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AS WELL AS AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE INVESTOR ENTITIES TO DEMO NSTRATE FULFIL MENT OF PRIMARY INGREDIENTS OF SEC. 68. T HE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOU NTS WAS ALSO PLA CE D ON RECORD. THE AFOR ESAID DOCU MENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN P LAC ED BEFORE US ALSO IN THE PAPER - BOOK AND WE HAVE PERUSED THE S AME. T HE PERUSAL OF BANK STATE MENTS OF INVESTOR EN TITIES WOULD SHOW T HAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONE Y WAS ROUTED THROUGH BANKING C HANNELS AN D THERE W ERE NO IMMEDIATE CASH DEPOSITS I N THE BANK ACCO UNTS BEFORE MAKING THE AFORESAID INVESTMENTS. THE PE RUSAL OF INCO ME T AX RETURNS WOULD SHOW THAT M/S AVANCE TECH NOLOGIES L TD. HAS RETURNED INCOME OF RS.3 9.66 LACS WHEREAS M/S PRABHAV INDUSTRI ES LTD. HA S RETURNED INCOME OF RS.2. 89 LACS. M/S SH RI GANESH S PINN ERS LTD . HAS PAID TAXES ON BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB. THE PERUSAL OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THES E ENTITIES WOULD REVE A L THAT THESE M/S. AMIRASHMI FINSTOCK P RIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR S :201 0 - 11 & 2011 - 12 5 ENTITIES HA VE SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS IN THE S HA PE OF SHARE CAPI TAL AND RE SERVES TO MAKE THE S TATED INVESTMENTS. T H E INVES T MENTS S O MAD E WITH THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY BEEN REFLECTED IN THEIR AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. UPON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT COULD SAFELY BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ONLY PRO VED THE IDEN T ITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT BUT ALSO THEIR RES P ECTIV E CREDITWORTHIN ESS TO ADVANCE SHARE A PPLICATION MONE Y TO THE ASSESSEE . 4 .4 HOWEVER, LD. AO OBSERVED THAT THE AFOR ESAID THREE E NTITIES WERE BEING MANAGED & CONTROLLED BY ONE SHRI SHIRISH CHANDRAKANT SHAH A ND MR. DEV ANG DINESH CHANDRA MASTER , ALLEGED BOG U S ENTRY PROVIDERS. SHRI SHIRIS H CHANDRAKANT SHAH W AS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH PROCEEDINGS ON 13 / 04 / 2013 WHE REIN, IN SWO R N S TATEMENT U / S 132(4), HE ADMIT TED THAT VARIOUS LISTED COMPANIES WERE BEING MANAGED AND CON TROLLED BY HIM. HE ALSO A DMITTED THAT THESE ENTITIE S WERE USED FOR PR OVING ACCO MMODATION ENTRIES OF SHARE CAPITAL , SHARE PREMIUM , S HARE APPLICATION AND UNSECURED LOANS. THE THREE E NTITIES WHO HAD ADVANCE D SHARE APPLICATION MONE Y TO THE ASSESSEE FORMED PAR T OF THAT GROUP . 4.5 IN THE SAID BACKGROUND, LD. AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE AN ADDITI ON OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY U/S 68 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT . THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE SAME B Y SUBMITTING THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUI NE A ND THE R E WAS NO RECORD WHATSOEV ER WHICH I NDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED IN TO ALLEGED BOGUS T RANS ACTION S . T HE ASSESSEE ALSO SOUGHT CROSS - EXAMINATION OF THE S AID ENTITIES. THE ATTENTION WA S DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT SHRI SHIRISH CHANDRAKANT SHAH WAS NEITHER A DIRECTOR NOR SHAREHOLDER IN ANY OF THE THREE ENTITIES. RELIANCE WAS PLACED M/S. AMIRASHMI FINSTOCK P RIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR S :201 0 - 11 & 2011 - 12 6 ON HOST OF JUDICIAL PRE CEDEN TS TO SUBM IT THAT THE ADDI TIONS COULD NOT BE MADE. 4.6 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEES SUBM ISSIONS COULD NOT FI ND FAVOR WITH LD. AO WHO OPINED THAT THE PLEA OF CROSS - EXAMINATION WOULD NOT HOLD GOOD AS THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY BE EN ASK ED TO PRODUCE THE PAR TIES TO PRO V E THE GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTION S BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSE E TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS . FIN ALLY, D ISR EGARDING ASSESSEE S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AS WELL AS EXPLANATION, THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 4.7 UPON FU RTHER APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) DE LETED THE SAME BY NOTICING THAT UP ON R EC EIPT OF SH ARE APPLICATION MO NEY , SHARES WERE ULTIMA TELY ISSUED TO THE APPLICA NT S AND THE SHARE APPLICANTS BECAME SHA REHOLDERS AS PER RECORD OF R EGISTRAR OF COMPANIES . AL L REQUIRED DETAILS VIS. S HARE APPLICATION , D ETAILS OF PAYMENT RECEIVED , SHARES ISSUED , COP IES OF ANNUAL RETURN F ILED WITH ROC WAS PLACED O N RECO RD. FURTHER , IN TERMS OF THE DEC ISION O F HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V / S GA GANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE P . LTD . ( ITA NO. 1613 O F 2014 DATED 20 /03 /2016) , PROVISO TO SEC.68 REQUIRING ASSESSEE TO PROVE T HE SOURCE OF SOURCE WAS APPLICABLE ONLY FROM AY 201 3 - 14 ONWARDS ONLY AND THEREF O RE, THE A DDITIONS SO MADE BY LD. AO WERE TO BE DELETED. AGGRIEVE D A S AFORESAID , THE REVENUE I S IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US . THE ASSESSEE, IN ITS CROSS OBJECTIONS , HAS MERELY AS SAILED THE STAND OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITIONS U /S 68 AND THEREFORE , THE SAME IS MERE LY IN SUPP ORT OF IMPUGNED A PPELLATE ORDER. M/S. AMIRASHMI FINSTOCK P RIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR S :201 0 - 11 & 2011 - 12 7 5. UP ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTUAL MATRIX AS ENUMERATED IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, PARTICULARLY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S SUBMI TTED B Y AS SESSEE TO PROVE T HE IDENTI T Y, CREDITWORTH INESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTI ONS AND APPRAISED BY US IN PRE CEDING PARA 4. 3 , IT IS QUITE EVIDEN T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DI SCHA RGED THE INITIAL ONUS OF PROVING THE FULFILMENT OF PRIMARY INGREDIENTS OF SE C.68 . THE ONUS, THUS , SHIFTED ON LD. AO TO RE BUT TH E ASSESSEES STAND AS WELL AS DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCES BY B RINGING ON RECORD COGENT MATERIAL TO DISLODGE THE S AME. HOWEVER, EXCEPT FOR RELYING O N A THIRD - PARTY ST ATE MENT, WHICH WAS NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE ASS ESS E E , THE RE IS NO OTHER MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE CO NCLUSION THAT THE SAID TRAN SACTIONS W ERE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. NO OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS - EXAMINATION WAS EVER PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN FACT, NO FUR THER I N VEST IGATIONS WERE DONE BY LD. AO TO SUPPORT HIS CONCL USION. THEREFORE, ADDI TIONS COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYES O F LAW. 6. AS R IGHTLY NOTED BY LD. CIT(A), IN TERMS OF THE DEC ISION O F HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V / S GA GANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE P . LTD . ( ITA NO. 1613 O F 2014 DATED 20 /03 /2016) , PROVISO T O SEC.68 REQUIRING ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE WAS APPLICABLE ONLY FROM AY 2013 - 14 ON WARDS ONLY AND THEREF O RE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE OBLIGATED TO PRO VE THE SOURCE OF S OURCE FOR AY 2010 - 11. WE CO NCU R WITH THE RELIANCE OF LD. CIT ( A) ON THIS BI NDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENT FOR THE SAID PRO POSITION . 7 . P ROCEEDING FURTHER , WE FIND THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS SADDLED WITH SIMILAR ADDITIONS IN AY 2012 - 13 BUT THE SAME WERE DELETED BY LD. CIT(A). UP ON FURT HER APPEAL T O TRIBUNAL, THE APP ELLATE ORDER WA S SET ASID E AND LD.AO WAS DIRECTED TO REFRAME THE A SSESSMENT . UPON PERUSAL M/S. AMIRASHMI FINSTOCK P RIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR S :201 0 - 11 & 2011 - 12 8 OF CITED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE , I N THAT YEAR, HAD RECEIVED SIMILAR SHARE PRE MIUM FROM CERTAIN ENTITIES WHICH WERE ALLEGEDLY BEING MANAGED AND CONTROLLED B Y SHRI SHI RISH CHANDRAKANT SHAH. RELYING ON THE S TA TEMENT OF S HRI SHIRISH CHANDRAKANT SHAH, THE SAME WERE ADDED AS ASSESSEE S INCOME U /S 68 , IN SIMILAR MANNER . THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY, CRE DITWORTHIN ESS AND GENU INENESS O F SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. UPON FU RTHER APPEAL TO TRIBUNA L, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO LD . AO FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER EXAMIN ING THE AFORESAID PARTIES AND ALLOWIN G THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE SAME. PURSUANT TO THE SAID DIR ECTIONS, A N ASSESSMENT W AS FR AMED U / S 143(3 ) R.W.S. 254 ON 30/12/2019. DURING THE COURSE OF FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE ASSESSEE HAD F ILED AN AFFID AVIT DATED 20 /12/2019 OF SHRI SHIRISH CHANDRAKANT SHAH IN SUPPORT OF THE TRANS ACTIONS. I N THE SAID AFFIDAVIT , SH RI SHAH , IN TER - AL IA, DE NIED HAVI NG PROVIDED ANY ACCOMMODATION ENT RI E S TO THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSES SEE HAD RELIED UP ON FAVORABLE DECISION OF HON BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF PR.CI T V/S C HAIN HOUSE INTERNATI ONAL LTD. (408 ITR 561) . THE SPECIAL LEAVE PE TITION (SLP) FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAI NST THE SAME WAS DISMISSED BY HON BLE SUPREM E COURT VIDE SLP NO. 1992 /2109 DATED 18/02/2019. AFTER DUE CONSIDE RATION OF ASSESSEE S SUBMISSIONS , LD. AO CHOSE NOT TO MAKE A NY ADDI TIO NS I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMI LAR A RE THE FACTS IN THIS YEAR SINCE THERE IS ALLEGATION BY LD. A O THAT TH E THREE ENTITIES WERE BEING MANAGED A S WELL AS CONTROLLED BY SHRI SHIRISH CHANDRAKANT SHAH WHEREAS THE SAID PARTY , IN T HE SWORN M/S. AMIRASHMI FINSTOCK P RIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR S :201 0 - 11 & 2011 - 12 9 AFFIDAV IT, HAS AL REA DY DE NIED HAVING ADVANCE D ANY ACCOMMOD ATION ENTRY TO THE ASSESSEE. 8 . IN THE ABOVE BACKG ROUND WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AD DI TIONS MADE L D. AO U / S 68 C OULD NOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYES OF LAW AND HENCE, RIGHTLY DELETED BY L D. CIT(A). THE IMPUGNED ORDER WOULD NOT R EQUIRE ANY INTERREFERENCE ON OUR PART. RESULTA NTLY, THE RE VENUE S APPEA L STAND S DISMISSED. THE A SSESSEE S CROSS - OBJ ECTIONS WHICH ARE MERELY SUPPORTIVE IN NATURE, WOULD N OT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFI C ADJUDICATION AND HENCE , D ISMISSE D. ITA NO. 4559/MUM/2017 & CO NO. 306/MUM /2018, AY 2011 - 12 9 . AS STATED EARLIER, FACTS ARE PARI - MATER IA THE SAME IN THIS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS BE EN SADDLED WITH SIMILAR ADDI TIONS, BEI NG SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN ENTITIES ALLEGEDLY BEIN G CONTROLL ED BY SHRI SH IRISH CHANDRAKANT SHAH. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED ON SIMILAR LINES. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME, INTER - ALIA, BY OBSERVING TH AT LD. AO DID NOT ESTABLISH ANY CONNECTION OF SHRI SHIRISH CHANDRAKANT SHAH W I TH THE LISTE D ENTITIES AND THE A DDI TIONS WERE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THIR D - PARTY STATEMENT . AS AGAINST THIS , THE ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLI SHED THE IDENTITY, CREDI TWORTHINESS AND GENUI NENESS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION BY FURNISHING COMPLETE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHI CH IS A L SO EVIDENT FROM SIMILAR DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US IN THE P APER - BOOK FOR THIS YEAR. AGGRIE VED, THE REVENUE IN IN FURT HER APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED SIMILAR CROSS - OBJECTIONS WHICH IS MERELY S UPPORTIVE OF IMPUGNED ORDER. 10 . SINCE THE FACTS A RE PARI - MA TERIA THE SAME, OUR ADJ UDICATION FOR AY 2 010 - 11 SHALL MUTATIS - MUTANDIS APPLY TO THIS YEAR AL SO. THE IMPUGNED M/S. AMIRASHMI FINSTOCK P RIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR S :201 0 - 11 & 2011 - 12 10 ORDER WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERREFE RENCE ON OUR PART. THE REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL A S ASSESSEES CROSS - OBJECTIONS STANDS DISMISSED . CONCLUSION 1 1 . THE REVENUE S APPEAL S AS WELL AS ASSESSEE S C ROSS - OBJEC TIONS STANDS DISMISSED. O RDER PR ONOUNCED ON 22 ND OCTOBER, 2020. SD/ - SD/ - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 22/10/2020 SR.PS , JAI SY VARGHESE / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MU MBAI 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI .