ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Tempo Appliances (P) Ltd., Delhi

ITA 4566/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6656 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 27-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P MEENA
• Keywords: Tangible material; Accommodation entries; Onus to prove
• Section: 133(6); 68; 69; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4566/DEL/2010 AY: 20 02-03 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS TEMPO APPLIANCES (P) L TD., WARD 16(2), 603/9, G.T. ROAD, NEW DELHI. OPPOSITE SYNDICATE BANK, SHAHDARA, DELHI. (PAN: AAACT4938M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI O.P.MEENA, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VED JAIN, ADV. SHRI PRANJAL SRIVASTAVA, ADV. ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.08.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XIX, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION WAS FILED DECLARING INCOME AT NIL. THE RETURN WAS ORIG INALLY PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). THEREAFTER, ON THE BASIS OF INF ORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF DIT (INV.), NEW DELHI THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD INTRODUCED UNACCOUNTED MONEY OF RS. 24.00 LACS IN I TS BOOKS I.T.A. NO. 4566/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 2 THROUGH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, THE CASE WAS RE-OPEN ED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147/143(3) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 AT AN INCOME OF RS.24,00,000/- AFTER ADDING R S. 24.00 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AS UNEXPLAINED SUM U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT (A), ON APPEAL, DELETED THIS ADDI TION. NOW, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETION BY THE LD. CIT (A). 3. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT DURING THE YEAR , THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SHOWN RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICA TION MONEY/SHARE CAPITAL OF RS. 24.00 LACS FROM THE FOLL OWING COMPANIES IN ITS BOOKS:- S. NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY AMOUNT 1 M/S RABIK EXPORTS LTD. 3,00,000 2 M/S ETHNIC CREATIONS PVT. LTD. 3,50,000 3 M/S SATWANT SINGH SODHI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 3,00,000 4 M/S SGC PUBLISHING PVT. LTD. 4,00,000 5 M/S ARUN FINVEST PVT. LTD. 3,50,000 6 M/S FNS CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. 4,00,000 7 M/S TASHI CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. 3,00,000 TOTAL 24,00,000 I.T.A. NO. 4566/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 3 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED IN HIS ASSESS MENT ORDER THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ALL THE SEVE N INVESTORS, IT WAS SEEN THAT THERE WERE HUGE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS BEFORE AND AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF CHEQUES I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACKNOWLEDG ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AFFIDAVITS, COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURNS, ALONG WITH BALANCE SHEETS ETC. TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM BUT NO BANK STATEMENTS WERE FILED INITIALLY. INFORMATION U/S 1 33(6) OF THE ACT WAS CALLED FOR AND THE BANK STATEMENTS WERE OBTAINE D FROM THE BANK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THA T THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE COMPANIES WAS NOT PROVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT IT WOULD BE FO OLISH FOR ANY PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN TO HAVE INVESTED IN THIS LOSS M AKING COMPANY. BASED ON THE ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE INVESTORS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE SE COMPANIES WERE ENTRY PROVIDERS. HE ACCORDINGLY ADDED BACK TH E ENTIRE SUM RECEIVED FROM THE SEVEN COMPANIES U/S 68 OF THE ACT BECAUSE, AS PER HIM, THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE O NUS. I.T.A. NO. 4566/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 4 5. THE LD. CIT (A), ON APPEAL, HOWEVER OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS IN THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO PROVE THE TRANSACTIONS: A) NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS B) INCOME TAX PARTICULARS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS C) SHARE APPLICATION FORMS D) CONFIRMATION OF SHAREHOLDERS WITH REGARD TO SHARE C APITAL SUBSCRIBED BY THEM E) AFFIDAVITS WITH REGARD TO THE SHARE CAPITAL SUBSCRI BED BY THEM F) COPIES OF RETURN OF ALLOTMENT FILED WITH THE ROC FO R SHARES ALLOTTED TO THE APPLICANTS. 6. THE LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT VERIFIED THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE INCOME TAX RECORDS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS/INVESTING COMPANIES. H E ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT CONTROVERTED THE SE FACTS BEFORE PROCEEDING TO MAKE THE ADDITION. THUS, AS PER THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN OF PROVIDING BASIC DETAILS REQUIRED FOR VERIFICATION OF THE IDENTITY OF THE CR EDITOR, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE I.T.A. NO. 4566/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 5 TRANSACTION. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAD NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO DISPUTE THE FACTS/DET AILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DESPITE CONDUCTING INDEPENDENT INQU IRIES IN TERMS OF SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. HE, ACCORDINGL Y, DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 7. THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ASSESSING OFFI CERS ORDER. 8. THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A ) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVED THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS ALSO PROVED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OR THE FINANCIAL STRENGTH OF THE SUBSCRIBER/CREDITOR. IT HAS OFFERED AN EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF MONEY FOUND CREDITED IN ITS BO OK OF ACCOUNT AS ENVISAGED U/S 68. HE SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE IDE NTITY OF SHARE APPLICANT/SHAREHOLDERS IS PROVED, THERE IS NO CASE FOR ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IF THERE WAS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHARE APPLICANT/S, NECESSAR Y ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF SHARE APPLIC ANT/S. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO REASON LEFT FOR THE A.O . TO DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE. I.T.A. NO. 4566/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 6 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS NOT VERIFIED THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND I.T. RECORDS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS/INVESTING COMPANIES. THE AVERME NTS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO WERE NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN OF PROVIDING BAS IC DETAILS WHICH WERE REQUIRED FOR VERIFICATION TO FULFILL THE CONDITIONS VIZ. IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE C REDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AS LAID DOWN BY HIGHER J UDICIAL AUTHORITIES FOR EXAMINING THE ISSUE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DIVINE LEASING & FINANCE LTD. 207 CTR 38 , THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- THERE CANNOT BE TWO OPINIONS ON THE ASPECT THAT T HE PERNICIOUS PRACTICE OF CONVERSION OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY THROUGH THE MASQUERADE OR CHANNEL OF INVESTMENT IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF A COMPANY MUST B E FIRMLY EXCORIATED BY THE REVENUE. EQUALLY, WHERE TH E PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE INDICATES ABSENCE OF CULPABILITY AND COMPLEXITY OF THE ASSESSEE IT SHOUL D NOT BE HARASSED BY THE REVENUES INSISTENCE THAT IT SHOULD PROVE THE NEGATIVE. IN THE CASE OF PUBLIC IS SUE, THE COMPANY CONCERNED CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO KNOW EVERY DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE IDENTITY AS WELL AS FINANCIAL WORTH OF EACH OF ITS SUBSCRIBERS. THE COMPANY MUST, HOWEVER, MAINTAIN AND MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS PERUSAL, ALL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE STATUTORY SHARE APPLICATION DOCUMENTS. IN THE CASE OF PRIVATE I.T.A. NO. 4566/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 7 PLACEMENT THE LEGAL REGIME WOULD NOT BE THE SAME. A DELICATE BALANCE MUST BE MAINTAINED WHILE WALKING THE TIGHTROPE OF SECTION 68 AND 69 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT. THE BURDEN OF PROOF CAN SELDOM BE DISCHARGED T O THE HILT BY THE ASSESSEE; IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HARBOURS DOUBTS OF THE LEGITIMACY OF ANY SUBSCRIPTI ON HE IS EMPOWERED, NAY DUTY-BOUND, TO CARRY OUT THOROUGH INVESTIGATIONS. BUT IF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FAILS TO UNEARTH ANY WRONG OR ILLEGAL DEALINGS, HE CANNOT OBDURATELY ADHERE TO HIS SUSPICIONS AND TREA T THE SUBSCRIBED CAPITAL AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE COMPANY. FURTHER, A DISTILLATION OF THE PRECEDENTS YIELDS T HE FOLLOWING PROPOSITION OF LAW IN THE CONTEXT OF SECT ION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PRIMA FA CIE PROVE (1) THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR/SUBSCRIBER; (2) THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, NAMELY : WHETHER IT HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED THROUGH BANKING OR OTHER INDISPUTABLE CHANNELS; (3) THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OR FINANCIAL STRENGTH OF THE CREDITOR/SUBSCRIBER; (4) IF RELEVANT DETAILS OF THE ADDRESS OF PAN IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR/SUBSCRIBER ARE FURNISHED TO THE DEPARTMENT ALONG WITH COPIES OF THE SHAREHOLDERS REGISTER, SHA RE APPLICATION FORMS, SHARE TRANSFER REGISTER ETC. IT WOULD CONSTITUTE ACCEPTABLE PROOF OR ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE; (5) THE DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN DRAWING AN ADVERSE INFERE NCE ONLY BECAUSE THE CREDITOR/SUBSCRIBER FAILS OR NEGLE CTS TO RESPOND TO ITS NOTICE; (6) THE ONUS WOULD NOT ST AND DISCHARGED IF THE CREDITOR/SUBSCRIBER DENIED OF REPUDIATED THE TRANSACTION SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE N OR SHOULD THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKE SUCH REPUDIATION AT FACE VALUE AND CONSTRUE IT, WITHOUT MORE, AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE; (7) THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DUTY- BOUND TO INVESTIGATE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR/SUBSCRIBER THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACT ION AND THE VERACITY OF THE REPUDIATION. I.T.A. NO. 4566/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 8 10. WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, WHILE DISMISSING THE SLP FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD . (216 CTR 195) OBSERVED AS UNDER: CAN THE AMOUNT OF SHARE MONEY BE REGARDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER S. 68 OF IT ACT, 1961? WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS, WHOSE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO THE AO, THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PROCEED TO REOPEN THEIR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HENCE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY WITH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. 11. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS NIPUN AUTO PVT. LTD. (2014) 361 ITR 155 (DELHI) HELD AS U NDER:- 10. ..WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE IDENTITY OF THE TWO COMPANIES WHICH ARE SISTER COMPANIES STOOD ESTABLISHED. FURTHERMORE, THIS IS NOT A CASE OF MERE FURNISHING OF COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE SUBSCRIBERS. BUT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS NOTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS OF THE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES AS ALSO THEIR BANK STATEMENTS AND BALANCE - SHEETS IN ADDITION TO THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE SAID TWO COMPANIES. A COPY OF FORM NO. 2 FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE WITH THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES REGARDING THE ALLOTMENT OF SHARES TO THE SAID TWO COMPANIES H AD ALSO BEEN FURNISHED. IT IS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ABLE TO PROVE ITS CASE A ND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT SHIFT THE BURD EN I.T.A. NO. 4566/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 9 BACK ONTO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WITHOUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRODUCING ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL T O DOUBT THE VERACITY OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE. THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CONCURRED WITH THE VIEWS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). 12 . IN THE CASE OF ANU INDUSTRIES LTD. VS ACIT (2009) 1 9 DTR (DEL), DELHI ITAT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUN D THAT IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE . THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF DIVINE LEASING & FINANCE LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT IF THE SHARE APP LICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EVEN FROM THE BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS WHOSE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO THE AO THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PROCEED TO, REOPEN T HEIR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION MADE UNDER S. 68 WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS UPHELD BY HON BLE SUPREME COURT. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DIVINE LEASING & FINAN CE LTD. REFERRED TO SUPRA IS IN REGARD TO SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS SPECIFICA LLY WITH A SPEAKING ORDER DISMISSED THE SLP. THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE VARIOUS DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE ADDITION IN REGARD TO THE SHARE CAPITAL CA NNOT BE TREATED AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE I F THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS WHOSE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO THE AO. FURTHER THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE REVENUE IS FREE TO PROCEED TO REOPEN THE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS OF SUCH ALLEGE D BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VALUE CAPI TAL SERVICES LTD. (SUPRA) HAS ALSO CATEGORICALLY HELD T HAT THERE IS ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW T HAT EVEN IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO MA KE THE INVESTMENT, BUT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPL ICANT SHOULD BE SHOWN TO HAVE EMANATED FROM THE COFFERS O F THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ENABLE IT TO BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTICED T HAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SPECIFICALLY SHOW THAT THE I.T.A. NO. 4566/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 10 INVESTMENTS HAD EMANATED FROM THE COFFERS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS ALSO HONBLE SUPREME C OURT REFERRED TO SUPRA, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN REGARD TO THE AL LEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS REPRESENTED BY THE INCREASE IN S HARE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPL AINED CASH CREDITS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTF ULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE UNDER S.68. HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PRO CEED TO REOPEN THE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 13. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE IDENTITIES OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF DIVINE LEASING & FINANCE LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD T HAT IF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY EVEN FROM THE BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS WHOSE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO THE AO THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PROCEED TO REOPEN THEIR I NDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ADDITION IN REGARD TO THE SHARE CAPITAL CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS WH OSE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO THE AO. FURTHER THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE REVENUE IS FREE TO PROC EED TO REOPEN THE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS OF SUCH ALLEGED BOGUS SH AREHOLDERS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A. NO. 4566/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 11 HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS ALSO HONBLE S UPREME COURT REFERRED TO SUPRA, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) REPRESENTED BY THE INCREASE IN SHAR E CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CRED ITS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO CON CLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED NECESSARY DETAILS INCLUDING T HE WARD/CIRCLE WHERE THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST ON IT. THE SHARE APPLICANT S WERE ALSO ALLOTTED SHARES AND THE DETAILS WERE MADE AVAILABLE . THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO DISPUTE THE FACTS /DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NOT FOUND ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN VIEW S OF FACTS AS NARRATED ABOVE AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, THE SHARE CAPITAL TO THE EXTENT OF RS.24.00 LACS STANDS EXPLA INED. HENCE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. BOTH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO. 4566/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 12 THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/02/ 2016. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (S UDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: THE 29TH OF FEBRUARY, 2016 GS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR