M/s. Global Capital Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4877/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65764 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: MANU K GIRI; ANOOP SHARMA S
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Accommodation entries; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 142(1); 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C : NEW DELHI) SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4877/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) M/S. GLOBAL CAPITAL LIMITED, VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 12 (1), 414/1, 4 TH FLOOR, DDA COMM. COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. DISTT. CENTRE, JANAK PURI, NEW DELHI 110 058. (PAN : AAACG3130E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI MANU K. GIRI & ANOOP SHARMA, ADVOCATES REVENUE BY : SHRI SATPAL SINGH, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS)-XV, NEW DELHI DATED 08.08.2011 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER :- 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF RE-OPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE IT ACT BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.30 ,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT BY HOLD ING THAT ITA NO.4877/DEL./2011 2 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GE NUINENESS AND CAPACITY OF THE ALLEGED SHAREHOLDERS WHEREAS IN FACT THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION RELATES TO RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEEDS IN RESPECT OF SHARES SOLD AND NOT RECEIPT OF SHARE CAP ITAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LEASI NG AND FINANCE. 3. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION, HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE GROUND NO.2, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS UPHOLD ING THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, 1961. 5. THE CIT (A) HAS UPHELD THE REOPENING BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 5. THE AO HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT A NOTICE U/S 142(1) AND 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING HIM TO PRODUCE THE PERSON / DIRECTOR FROM WHOM ENTR IES HAVE BEEN TAKEN OR WHO HAVE APPLIED FOR SHARE IN YOUR COMPANY, ALON GWITH THEIR BALANCE SHEET AND BANK STATEMENT THROUGH WHICH THE TRANSACT ION HAVE TAKEN PLACE AND KIND ADDED ACCOUNTS ALSO FURNISH THEIR AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE YEAR ENDING ON 31.03.2001 , 31.03.2002 AND 31.03.2003.' DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 BY OBJ ECTING TO THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO. THESE OBJECTIONS W ERE DISPOSED OFF BY THE AO IN A SPEAKING ORDER DATED 22.12.2010. SECTION 149(1)(B) SPECIFIES THAT NOT MORE THAN 6 YE ARS SHOULD HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEA R & UNLESS THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT OR I S LIKELY TO IS RS.1.00 LAKH OR MORE. IN THIS CASE 6 YEARS HAD NOT ELAPSED HENCE THE ACTION OF THE AO IS UPHELD. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED THE INFORMATION WHICH WAS SPECIFIC, CONCRE TE AND RELEVANT INFORMATION. IT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATIO N WING. THERE WAS A LIVE ITA NO.4877/DEL./2011 3 AND INTELLIGENT NEXUS BETWEEN THE REASONS RECORDED AND THE BELIEF FORMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE FIND NO MERITS IN THE ASSESSEES PLEA ON THIS GROUND. THE REOPENING IS AS PER LAW. WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. 7. GROUND NO.3 IS RELATED TO THE UPHOLDING OF THE A DDITION OF RS.30 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961. 8. THE CIT (A) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION BY HOLDING A S UNDER :- 7. THE 4TH GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO THE ADDIT ION OF RS.30,00,000/- U/S 68. WHILE MAKING THE SAID DISALL OWANCE THE AD HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT IN THIS CASE THE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED IN THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING ACCO MMODATION ENTRY FROM ENTRY PROVIDER. THE AO HAS STATED THAT: AS EXPLAINED IN THE REASONS RECORDED, THERE IS SPE CIFIC, CONCRETE AND RELEVANT INFORMATION / MATERIAL EXPOSING THE RE AL NATURE OF THE TRANSACTIONS. A REPORT CONTAINING SPECIFIC INFORMAT ION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM ENTRY OPERATOR S. THERE IS A LIVE AND INTELLIGIBLE NEXUS BETWEEN THE REASONS AND THE BELIEF. THE REASONS RECORDED CONTAIN AMPLE DETAILS OF THE OSTENSIBLE BU SINESS TRANSACTIONS IN THE BARB OF WHICH THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AS HAVE BEEN TAKEN. COPY OF THE REASON CONTAINING THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE T RANSACTION HAS ALSO BEEN DULY PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF BRIJ MOHAN AGGARWAL VS ACIT (2004) 268 ITR (ALL.), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT R EPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT IS SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH NOTICE U/S 148 CAN BE ISSUED. THE PROCEEDI NGS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN VALIDLY INITIATED IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED PROPOSITIONS DERIVED FROM A NUMBER OF DECIDED CASES. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH ON MERITS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS UNDER CON SIDERATION WERE NOT BOGUS TRANSACTIONS. IN THE CASE OF GURERA GAS CYLINDERS PVT. LTD. (2002 ) 258 ITR 170, IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY HELD THAT AT THE STAGE OF INITI ATION OF PROCEEDINGS, THE SUFFICIENCY, ADEQUACY OR CORRECTNESS OF REASONS CAN NOT BE GONE INTO. IN THE CASE OF RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. VS ITO (1992 ) 236 ITR 34 (SC) ALSO, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT WHILE CONSIDERING WHETHER COMMENCEMENT OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS VALID, IT IS ONLY TO BE ITA NO.4877/DEL./2011 4 SEEN THAT WHETHER THERE WAS SOME PRIMA FACIE MATERI AL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE DEPARTMENT COULD REOPEN THE CASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN VALIDLY INITIATED AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVIS IONS OF LAW. THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE UNTENABLE AND HENCE HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OFF VIDE ABOVE REFERRED ORDER DATED 22/12/ 2010. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN OF SHARES SOLD OF VARIOUS PA RTIES AND HAS TAKEN THE ENTRIES IN THE ABOVE REFERRED MANNER I.E. THROUGH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, THE DETAILS OF WHICH FOR THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT ARE GIVEN BELOW:- S.NO. ASSESSEE BANK A/C VALUE OF ENTRY TAKEN INSTRUMENT NO. BY WHICH ENTRY TAKEN DATE ON WHICH ENTRY TAKEN NAME OF A/C HOLDER OF ENTRY GIVING A/C BANK A/C FROM WHICH ENTRY GIVEN 1 2939 500000 256711 29-OCT-2002 ABN ALUMINIUM INDS JAILAXMI COOP BANK 2 2939 500000 256711 29-OCT-2002 ABN ALUMINIUM INDS JAILAXMI COOP BANK 3 3033 500000 257417 5-NOV-2009 NATRAJ COMMUNICATION (P) LTD. JAILAXMI COOP BANK 4 3033 500000 257417 5-NOV-2009 NATRAJ COMMUNICATION (P) LTD. JAILAXMI COOP BANK 5 3033 500000 257418 5-NOV-2009 NATRAJ COMMUNICATION (P) LTD. JAILAXMI COOP BANK 6 2939 500000 486220 18-OCT-2002 ABN ALUMINIUM INDS JAILAXMI COOP BANK 7 2939 500000 256709 24-OCT-2002 ABN ALUMINIUM INDS JAILAXMI COOP BANK 8 2939 500000 256710 24-OCT-2002 ABN ALUMINIUM INDS JAILAXMI COOP BANK 40,00,000 FOLLOWING DISCUSSION WILL SHOW HOW THE ENTRIES TAKE N ARE SHAM TRANSACTION AND HENCE THE ENTRIES SO RECEIVED ARE T HE AMOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF: THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS UNEART HED A HUGE MONEY LAUNDERING OPERATION AND SENT THE REQUISITE INFORMA TION TO THE FIELD FORMATIONS. IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RE CEIVED CHEQUE IN LIEU OF CASH PAYMENT~ FROM THE ENTRY OPERATORS PROVIDING AC COMMODATION ENTRIES. THERE IS A SYSTEMATIC PLAN IN WHICH THE MO NEY IS RECEIVED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE CHEQUES ARE ISSUED TO THE INT ERESTED PARTIES. IT IS A WELL KNOWN AND NOTORIOUS PRACTICE WHICH HAS BEEN RE SORTED TO BY VARIOUS INTERESTED CONCERNS AND INDIVIDUALS. THE MONEY IS R ECEIVED IN THE FORM OF ITA NO.4877/DEL./2011 5 SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OR SHARE CAPITAL OR UNSECUR ED LOANS. THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY IS GIVEN TO THE ENTRY OPERATOR WH O IN TURN ISSUES THE CHEQUE TO THE BENEFICIARY. IN LIEU, THE ENTRY OPERA TOR CHARGES SOME COMMISSION WHICH IS A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE AMO UNT SOUGHT TO BE LEGITIMISED IN THE GARB OF CHEQUES RECEIVED AS SHAR E APPLICATION MONEY OR SHARE CAPITAL OR UNSECURED LOAN OR PROCEEDS OF S ALE OF SHARES OF CERTAIN NON DESCRIPT COMPANIES. THE PARTIES WHO HAVE UNACCOUNTED MONEY AND WANT TO INTRODUCE THE SAME IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITHOUT PAYING AND TAX, APPROACH THE ENTRY OPERATOR AND HAND OVER THE CASH AND TAKE CHEQUES / POS/ DDS. THE CASH IS DEPOSITED BY THE ENTRY OPERATOR IN THE BANK ACCOUNT EITHER IN HIS OWN NAME OR IN THE NAME OF RELATIVE /FRIENDS OR OTHER P ERSONS HIRED BY HIM FOR THIS PURPOSE. IN MOST OF THESE BANK ACCOUNTS, THE I NTRODUCER IS THE MAIN ENTRY OPERATOR AND THE CASH DEPOSIT SLIPS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS ARE FILED BY HIM. THE OTHER PERSON IN WHOSE NAME THE ACCOUNT IS OPEN ONLY SIGNS THE CHEQUES BOOKS AND HAND THEM OVER TO ENTRY OPERA TOR. THE ENTRY OPERATOR THEN ISSUES CHEQUES / POS/DDS IN THE NAME OF THE BENEFICIARY FROM THE SAME ACCOUNT OR ROUTED THROUGH MORE THAN O NE ACCOUNT TO CONFUSE THE AUTHORITIES. THE BENEFICIARY IN TURN DE POSITS THESE INSTRUMENTS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE MONEY COMES TO HIS REG ULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE FORM OF GIFTS, SHARE APPLICATION MO NEY OR SHARE CAPITAL OR UNSECURED LOANS. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT WHEN THE G ENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS IS UNDER SERIOUS DOUBT, THEN, IT I S THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF CR EDITS APPEARING THE ITS BOOKS BUT THE ASSESSEE MERELY FILES CERTAIN CONFIRM ATION ON THE PART OF SHARE HOLDERS. THE CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE DOES NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE HOLDE R. MOREOVER, IN THEIR STATEMENTS, THOSE ENTRY PROVIDERS HAVE CATEGORICALL Y STATED THAT, WHEN THEY PROVIDE CHEQUES IN LIEU OF CASH TO THE BENEFIC IARIES, THEN THEY ALSO SIGN SOME PAPERS, WHICH WERE HANDED OVER TO THESE B ENEFICIARIES. THESE PAPERS MIGHT BE CONFIRMATION DEEDS OR GIFT DEEDS _ ETC. THIS CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE GOT THE CONF IRMATION FROM THESE ENTRY PROVIDERS ONLY AT THE TIME OF RECEIVING CREDITS. SO , THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON THIS ACCOUNT. ' THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILE D TO FURNISH ANY SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED INVESTORS AND THE MOTIVE BEHIND THE TRANSACTION AS WELL AS IN THE CAPACITY OF THE PARTIES. THE ADDITION WAS HENCE CALLED FOR. HE WAS FURTHER DISCUSSED THAT THE HON'BLE APEX COURT ORDER IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORT PVT. LTD. (216 CTR 195). IT IS A JUDGEMENT WHICH HA S TO BE READ IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS THAT AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION I N THAT PARTICULAR CASE. FIRST AND FOREMOST IT IS BROUGHT TO RECORD THAT IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORT PVT. LTD., THE APEX COURT MERELY MADE AN OBSERVATIO N THAT THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS UPHELD. IN THE HON'BLE H IGH COURT'S IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN ALL POSSIBLE D OCUMENTS, EVIDENCES, ITA NO.4877/DEL./2011 6 PROOF & EXPLANATION TO THE AO AND HE COULD HAVE DON E NOTHING MORE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. HOWEVER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER REFERENCE IS DIFFERENT, AS HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD ABOVE. IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT ENTRY PRO VIDER MADE SUBMISSIONS ON OATH BEFORE SR. INCOME-TAX AUTHORITI ES REGARDING THE MODUS OPERANDI OF GIVING BOGUS ENTRY. HOWEVER, AS HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO, A ND REPRODUCED ABOVE THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GEN UINENESS AND CAPACITY OF ALLEGED SHARE HOLDERS. ROUTING THE AMOUNT THROUG H THE BOOKS DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF GENUINENESS OR CREDITWORTHI NESS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE STAND OF THE AO IS CONFIRMED. 7. THE 4TH GROUND OF APPEAL IS PERTAINS TO INITIAT ION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271 (1)(C). SINCE NO ACTION HAS BEE N TAKEN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, MERE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HA S BEEN DONE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PREMATURE AND HENCE DISMISSED. 9. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE SHARES TO TWO PARTIES, I.E. ABN ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES AND NATRAJ COMMUNICAT ION (P) LTD. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN THE BOOKS REPRESENTS THE SALE PR OCEEDS OF THE SHARES TO THESE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONVERTED ONE ASSE T INTO OTHER FORM OF ASSET. THE SHARES HAVE BEEN IN THE OPENING STOCK AND WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN AS CLOSING BALANCE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE REVENUE S CLAIM THAT ASSESSEE INVOLVED IN A SYSTEMATIC PLAN IN WHICH THE MONEY IS RECEIVED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND CHEQUES ARE ISSUED TO THE INTERESTED PA RTIES IS NOT TRUE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE REVENUES CLAIM THAT U NACCOUNTED MONEY IS GIVEN TO THE ENTRY OPERATORS WHO IN TURN ISSUED THE CHEQU ES TO THE BENEFICIARIES HAS NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE REVENUE. THE CIT (A) WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT ROUTING THE AMOUNT THR OUGH THE BOOKS DOES NOT ITA NO.4877/DEL./2011 7 ESTABLISH THE SOURCE AND CREDITWORTHINESS. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH T HE GENUINENESS AND CAPACITY OF THE ALLEGED SHAREHOLDERS. LD. AR PLEADED TO DEL ETE THE ADDITION. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT AS SESSEE HAS TAKEN THE ENTRY FROM THE ENTRY OPERATORS AND THE ENTRY OPERAT ORS HAD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN STATEMENT ON OATH THAT THEY ARE PROVIDING ENTRIES A ND HAS RECEIVED CASH FROM BENEFICIARIES BEFORE ISSUING THE CHEQUES. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON, GENUINENES S OF TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED. IN ABSENCE OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION A ND ESTABLISHING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSON, THE AMOUNT HAS TO B E ASSESSED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLI SH THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS FRO M WHOM THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED, THE CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING TH E ADDITION. HE FINALLY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE CERTIFIED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 61 PAGES. PAGE 14 OF THIS PAPER BOOK IS SCHEDULE V TO THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE RELEVANT FI NANCIAL YEAR. AS PER THIS BALANCE SHEET, THERE WERE 90,000 PREFERENTIAL SHARE S OF DUSK VALLEY TECHNOLOGIES LTD. AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2002. BALANCE OF SUCH SHARES AS ON ITA NO.4877/DEL./2011 8 31.03.2003 WAS NIL. LD. AR HAD PLEADED BEFORE US T HAT ALL THE SHARES WERE SOLD AT PAR. BEFORE US, IT IS CLAIMED THAT AMOUNT ON WHICH ADDITION MADE IS SALE PROCEEDS OF THESE SHARES. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTE D BEFORE US THAT THESE SHARES WERE SOLD AT PAR. TOTAL SHARES WERE 90,000. NO DE TAILS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE RECORDS WHAT HAPPENED TO BALANCE SHARES. WHETHER T HESE SHARES WERE ALSO SOLD OR NOT? WHETHER THESE WERE SOLD AT PAR OR AT ANY OTHER RATE? WHO WERE THE PURCHASERS? LD. AR HAS ALSO SHOWN INABILITY TO PUT ANY LIGHT IN THIS REGARD. REVENUE HAD TREATED THESE TRANSACTIONS AS SHAM AND ADDED THE AMOUNT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, TO ARRIVE AT CORRE CT FINDINGS OF FACTS WITH REGARD TO THESE ENTRIES IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, A HOLISTIC VIEW IS NECESSARY. THESE ENTRIES HAVE BEEN SHOWN RECEIPT F ROM ENTRY OPERATORS WHICH HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED BY THE OFFICERS OF THE INVEST IGATION WING. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE SERIOUSLY DOUBTED THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE A MOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS RECEIVED. ASSESSEE CLAIMS IT AS SALE PROCEEDS O F SHARES SHOWN AS CLOSING BALANCE IN IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR. SUCH ENTRIES TO BE LOOKED INTO WITH CARE AND CAUTION BEFORE NECESSARY INFERENCES ARE DRAWN. THE NON-AVAILABILITY OF DETAILS OF REMAINING SHARES IS AN ABNORMALITY ATTAC HED TO THESE SHARES. AS HELD BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MCDOWE LL & CO. LTD. VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 154 ITR 148 (SC), COLOURAB LE DEVICES ARE NOT PART OF TAX PLANNING. TRANSACTIONS GENUINENESS IS MUST TO BE ESTABLISHED. THE ITA NO.4877/DEL./2011 9 FACTS ON RECORD ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ARRIVE AT ANY FINAL CONCLUSION ON EITHER SIDE WITH REGARD TO THESE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFOR E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THE IS SUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A). THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 9 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XV, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.