Meena Jain, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5034/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7063 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Share purchase agreement; Additional evidence; Question of law; Accommodation entries
• Section: 131; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.5034/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR2002-03) MEENA JAIN, VS. ITO, WARD, 25(3), HOUSE NO.109, NEW DELHI ARIHANT NAGAR, PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI-110 026 GIR / PAN :AAGPJ3574H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :SHRI GAUTAM JAIN, ADV. SHRI PIYUSH KUMAR KAMAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.09.2016 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.05.2012 PASSED BY LD. CI T(A) XVII, NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING EITHER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE OR THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE LD' CIT(A ) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- WHICH IS BAD IN LAW OR ON FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD' CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.5,0,000/- BECAUSE THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT 2 I.T.A.NO.5034./DEL/2012 WAS ILLEGAL AND HENCE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S . 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,196L IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD' CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN, SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S. 68 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961. 3.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD' CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.5,00,000/- BECAUSE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NO T JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE CAPITAL GAINS ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN AS NON GENUINE TRANSACTION AND HAVE THEREBY ERRED IN TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES U/S. 68. 3.2_0N THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD' CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO NS OF RS.5,00,000/- BECAUSE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT NOR HAVE THEY CONFRONTED THE DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THEM WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASE AND S ALE OF SHARES. 3.3 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD' CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO NS OF RS.5,00,000 BECAUSE THE 'AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN WRONGLY RELYING ON STATEMENT OF SOME PARTI ES RECORDED BEHIND BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PRODUCING THEM FOR CROSS EXAMINATION INSPITE OF A REQUEST BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THUS HAVE ERRED IN USING THAT EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE F OR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, 3.4 THE LD' CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.5,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O BY TREATING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 5,00,000 FROM THE SALE OF 20,000 EQUITY SHARES EACH TO SH. SACHIN 3 I.T.A.NO.5034./DEL/2012 GUUPTA & SMT. RANI SHARMA RESPECTIVELY AS BEING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 3.5 THE LD' CITCA) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF THE ACT ON PETTY TECHNICAL GROU NDS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT PURCHASED EQUITY SHARES OF BT TECH NET L TD FOR RS.4,45,000/- IN THE PRECEDING YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WHICH HAD BEEN SOLD DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 3.6 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, THE A.O HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDIT FOR RS. 52,840 WHICH HAD BEEN SHOWN AS CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE AND PURCHASE OF 40,000 EQUITY SHARES OF BT TECH NET LTD IN THE INCOME TAX RETURNS. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: 2.1 THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAD FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION O N 02.08.2002 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2,32,455/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. AN INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM DIT (INVESTIGATION) T HAT ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN AN ENTRY OF RS.2.50 LACS FORM ON E SHRI SACHIN GUPTA THROUGH CHEQUE DATED 16.04.2001 DRAWN ON KARUR VYASA BANK, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI AND RS.2.50 LACS FROM MR. RANI SHARMA THROUGH A CHEQUE DATED 16.04.2001 DRAWN ON FEDERAL BANK, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI. THE SAID CHEQES WERE FOUND CREDITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH DENA BANK, SOUGHT EXTN., PA RT I, NEW DELHI. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S148 DATED 13.03.2009 WAS ISSUED ON 20.03.2009. 4 I.T.A.NO.5034./DEL/2012 2.2 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCLUDED THE GAIN FROM SHORT TERM IN THE TOTAL INCOME AND THERE WAS NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE TRANSACTION TO BE GENUINE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF R S.5 LACS, U/S 68 AS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 2.3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 2.4 BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHE RECEIVED TWO CHEQUES OF RS.2,50,000/- EACH FROM MR. SACHIN GUPTA THROUGH CHEQUE DRAWN ON KARUR VYASA BANK, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI AND MRS. RANI SHARMA THROUGH CHEQUE DRAWN ON FEDERAL BANK, KAROL BAGH, N EW DELHI, AGAINST THE SALE OF 20000 EQUITY SHARES EACH @12.50 PER SHARE, OF B. T. TECHNET LIMITED. SHE SUBMITTED THAT SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY CHEQU ES WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HELD BY THE ASSE SSEE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THESE SHARES WERE PURCHASED BY H ER IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR FROM JAITN TANEJA & OTHERS. COP IES OF THE SHARE CERTIFICATES ALONG WITH DETAIL OF THE DIS TINCTIVE NUMBER ETC. WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T SHE HAS EARNED PROFIT ON THE SALE OF SHARES OF RS.52,84 0/- (RS.5,00,000 - RS.4,45,000/ - RS.2,160 (COMMISSION) ) AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE STATEMENT OF TAXA BLE INCOME FILED ALONG WITH ORIGINAL INCOME TAX RETURN FILED. 2.5 LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 5 I.T.A.NO.5034./DEL/2012 THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS WHO HAVE ALLEGEDLY PURCHASED THE SHARES. AS THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE SUMS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS WAS NOT SATISFACTORY THERE WAS. PRIMA FACIE. EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. VIZ., THE RECEIPT OF MONEY. THE BURDEN WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE SAME. AND. HE FAILED TO REBUT IT. IT CAN THEREFORE BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS A RECEIPT OF AN INCOME NATURE. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARG E ITS ONUS TO PRODUCE LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR. THE EXPRESSION 'THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION' MEANS THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO PROPER REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION AS REGARDS THE SUMS FOUND CREDITED IN T HE BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT HAS OFFERED NO CREDITABLE EXPLANATION ABO UT THE AMOUNTS CREDITED IN HIS BOOKS, THE RECEIPT OF RS.5.00.000/- THEREFORE CANNOT BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 5.00.000/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 IS CONFIRMED. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 3.1 LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS REOPENED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THA T THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INVESTIGATION), NEW DELHI HAS FOUND IN INVESTIGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM THE ENTRY OPERA TOR AND HAD RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA WHO HAD GIVEN GENERAL STATEMENT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.1 THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL DIRE CTOR OF INCOME- TAX (INVESTIGATION) HAD ACCEPTED THE VER SION OF 6 I.T.A.NO.5034./DEL/2012 THE SAID ENTRY OPERATORS AS BEING THE GOSPEL TRUTH INSTEAD OF PROCEEDING AGAINST THE SAID IN RESPECT OF CASH C REDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE SAID ALLEGED ENTRY OPERATOR H AD NEVER GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC NAME OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF RS.5,00,000/ -. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH ADVERSE MATERIAL, IT COU LD NOT BE ASSUMED THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES RECEIVE D BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS NOT GENUINE. 3.2 LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIV ED TWO CHEQUES OF RS.2,50,000/- EACH BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES FROM MR. SACHIN GUPTA & MRS. RANI SHARMA RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE SALE PROCEEDS OF 20000 EAC H EQUITY SHARES OF B. T. TECHNET LIMITED WHICH SHE HA D PURCHASED FOR RS.4,45,000/- IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. L D. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSUMED THAT T HE SUM OF RS.5,00,000/- (RS.2,50,000 + RS. 2,50,000) RECEIVED AGAINST THE SALE PROCEEDS OF 40000 EQUITY SHARES IS THE INCOME CHARGEABLE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT WITHOUT EVEN ALLOWING THE COST OF THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 4,45,000/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPRECIATE D THAT THE SALE PROCEED OF INVESTMENT SOLD FOR RS. 5,00,00 0/- HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE BY A/C PAYEES CHEQUE S. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE DISCHARGED THE BUR DEN IN RESPECT OF THE SAID RECEIPT IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUD GMENT OF PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADDL. CIT VS. BAHRI BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED (1985) 154 ITR 44. 3.3 IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS PALPABLY WRONG. FIRSTLY IT WAS NEVER 7 I.T.A.NO.5034./DEL/2012 STATED BY HIM THAT THE SALE OF SHARES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WAS NOT BONA FIDE. IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC MATERIAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT PROCEED TO ASSUME THE SALE PROCEED OF RS.5,00,000/- AS BEIN G ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. A.R . PLACED RELIANCE ON TWO JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL VS. SP. CHALI HA & OTHERS (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC) AND (II) ITO VS. LAKH MANI MEWAL DAS (1967) 1031TR 437 (SC). 3.4 LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT HE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S NOT PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONFRONT SH. SACHIN GUPTA & SMT. RANI SHARMA TO BRING OUT THE TR UE STATE OF AFFAIRS. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 20000 EQUITY SHARES EACH OF RS.10/- OF M/ S. B T TECHNET LTD. FOR THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,0 0,000/- EACH FROM MS. MANJU GUPTA D/O SH. LAXMAN DASS, RIO. 4439, KATRA RAI JI, PAHARGANJ AND MS. SHANTI DEVI G UPTA, 010. SH. SHYAM SINGH GUPTA, RIO WZ-48, BASAI, DARAP UR AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT DATED 3 RD AND 4TH MARCH, 2000 RESPECTIVELY. LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF CHEQUE AND SAL E OF SHARES AND PURCHASE OF AMOUNT WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 30.10.2009 AND VIDE LETTER DATED 07.02.2012, ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPL ICATION UNDER RULE 46A FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 8 I.T.A.NO.5034./DEL/2012 (I) THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENTS IS ENCLOSED. FURTHER THE APPELLANT IS FILING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE BOTH SELLERS OF THE SAID SHARES. (II) COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT FOR FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS (III) COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT FOR FILING OF WEALTH TAX RETURNS (IV) COPY OF RETION CARD. (V) COPY OF BALANCE SHEET. VI) BANK STATEMENTS OF SHRI SACHIN GUPTA AND MS. RANI SHARMA. 4.1 LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THESE DOCUMENTS BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE SAME WERE NOT TRACEABLE. 4.2 LD. A.R. REFERRED TO THE COMPUTATION OF NET PRO FIT FROM CAPITAL GAIN PLACED AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOO K WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS.52,840/-. HE FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT PROFIT EARNED ON SALE HAS BEEN INCLUDED WHILE CALCULATING THE TAXABLE INCOME WHICH IS PLACED AT P AGE 1. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED THE AMOUNT FOR TAXATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ADDIN G TAXABLE INCOME AGAIN HAS AMOUNTED TO DOUBLE TAXATIO N. HE THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4.3 LD. A.R. PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN I.T.A. NO. 504/DEL/2016 PASSED IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SOFT LINE CREATIONS PVT. LTD. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE GENUINENESS AND 9 I.T.A.NO.5034./DEL/2012 CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI SACHIN GUPTA NEW DELHI MRS . RANI SHARMA HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE U S. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE PURCHASE OF 40,000 SHARE S OF B T TECHNET LTD. IN THE YEAR 2000 VIDE AGREEMENT DATE D 3 RD AND 4 TH MARCH FROM ONE MS. MANJU GUPTA AND MS. SHANTI DEVI GUPTA RESPECTIVELY, WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD TO SHR I SACHIN GUPTA AND MS. RANI SHARMA IN THE YEAR 2001. ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK PLACED BEFORE US, IT APPE ARS THAT HE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAXES ON THE PROFITS EARNED FR OM SALE OF SHARES. LD. D.R. ADMITTED THE FACT THAT THERE IS DOUBLE TAXATION AS FAR AS RS.2,32,445/- IS CONCERNED. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. A. O. TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,32,445/-. 6.1 HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CI T VS SOFTLINE CREATIONS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UN DER: 4. THIS COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE CONCURRENT ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ITAT. BOTH THESE AUTHORITIES PRIMARILY WENT BY THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED SUFFICIENT INDICATION BY WAY OF PAN NUMBERS, TO HIGHLIGHT THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS, AS WELL AS PRODUCED THE AFFIDAVITS OF DIRECTORS. FURTHERMORE, THE BANK DETAILS OF THE SHA RE APPLICANTS TOO HAD BEEN PROVIDED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS, T HE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AND THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. THE AO CHOSE TO PROCEED NO FURTHE R BUT MERELY ADDED THE AMOUNTS BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF THE DIRECTORS TO PHYSICALLY PRESENT THEMSELVES BEFORE HIM. 10 I.T.A.NO.5034./DEL/2012 5. THE ITAT HAS RELIED UPON A DECISION OF THIS COUR T IN CIT V. FAIR FINVEST LTD. 2013 357 ITR 146 (DEL) WHE RE IN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS STATED AS FOLLOWS: '6. THIS COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES. IN THIS CASE THE DISCUSSION BY THE CIT(APPEALS) WOULD REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DOCUMENTS INCLUDING CERTIFIED COPIES ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES IN RELATION TO THE SHARE APPLICATION, AFFIDAVITS OF THE DIRECTORS, FORM 2 FILED WITH THE ROC BY SUCH APPLICANTS CONFIRMATIONS BY THE APPLICANT FOR COMPANY'S SHARES, CERTIFICATES BY AUDITORS ETC. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHOSE TO BASE HIMSELF MERELY ON THE GENERAL INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN FROM THE READING OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT AND THE STATEMENT OF MR. MAHESH GARG. TO ELEVATE THE INFERENCE WHICH CAN BE DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF READING OF SUCH MATERIAL INTO JUDICIAL CONCLUSIONS WOULD BE IMPROPER, MORE SO WHEN THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED MATERIAL. THE LEAST THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE DONE WAS TO ENQUIRE INTO THE MATTER BY, IF NECESSARY, INVOKING HIS POWERS UNDER SECTION 131 SUMMONING THE SHARE APPLICANTS OR DIRECTORS. NO EFFORT WAS MADE IN THAT REGARD. IN THE ABSENCE OJ ANY SUCH FINDING THAT THE MATERIAL DISCLOSED WAS UNTRUSTWORTHY OR LACKED CREDIBILITY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY CONCLUDED ON THE BASIS OF ENQUIRY REPORT, WHICH COLLECTED CERTAIN FACTS AND THE STATEMENTS OF MR. MAHESH GARG THAT THE INCOME SOUGHT TO BE ADDED JELL WITHIN THE DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 68. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS CASE ACCORDS WITH THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN LOVELY EXPORTS (SUPRA).' 11 I.T.A.NO.5034./DEL/2012 6. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES, HAVING REGARD TO THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS, IN OUR OPINION, COMPLIED WI TH THE LAW SPELT OUT BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. LOVELY EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 216 CTR (SC) 195. THE APPE AL IS MERITLESS AND IS CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSED. 6.2 SIMILAR IS THE SITUATION IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DETAILS / DOCUMENTS RELATING TO SHRI SACH IN GUPTA AND MRS. RANI SHARMA BEFORE LD. CIT(A). FROM THE REMAND REPORT, IT APPEARS THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS NOT VERIFIED THESE DOCUMENTS. 6.3 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY H ON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS SOFTLINE CREATIONS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAN DS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST SEP., 2016. SD./- D./- (J. S. REDDY) (BEENA A. PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:21.09.2016 SP. 12 I.T.A.NO.5034./DEL/2012 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI) S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 21/9/16 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 21/9 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 21/9 SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER