Sushila Steel Complex (P) Ltd., Kolkata V. The ITO, Wd-7 (3), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 540/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9144 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SNEHANSU BISWAS
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Reason to believe
• Section: 133(6); 68; 148; 6

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 540/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A(SMC) BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 540/KOL/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 SUSHILA STEEL COMPLEX (P) LIMITED,................. ...........................APPELLANT 26, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, KOLKATA-700 017 [PAN: AAECS 2691 A] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ .....................................RESPONDENT WARD-7(3), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI SNEHANSU BISWAS , JCIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTME NT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MARCH 09, 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MARCH 17, 2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXII, KOLKATA DATED 07.01.2014 AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN READ AS UNDER:- (1) FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-XXXII, KOLKATA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE AND ADDITION OF RS.3,06,520/- BEING TH E AMOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. (2) FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-XXXII, KOLKATA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE AND ADDITION OF RS.5,01,480/- BEING TH E AMOUNT OF LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES. (3) FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-XXXII, KOLKATA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE AND ADDITION OF RS.27,50,000/- BEING T HE AMOUNT OF SHARE INVESTMENT MADE BY FOUR COMPANIES. I.T.A. NO. 540/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 PAGE 2 OF 8 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT NOW SURVIVES FOR THE CONSIDE RATION AS RAISED IN GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.27,50,00 0/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED C ASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, W HICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN TELEVISION AND AUDIO ITE MS, BAJAJ PRODUCTS, ETC. ON RETAIL BASIS AS WELL AS DEALING IN SHARES. THE R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 28.10.2 002 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,90,714/-. THE SAID RETURN WAS INITIA LLY PROCESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON 22.02.200 3. SUBSEQUENTLY HE, HOWEVER, HAD A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGE ABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE, THEREFORE, REOPENED THE ASS ESSMENT AND ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 15.01.2007 AFTER RECORD ING THE REASONS. IN REPLY, A LETTER WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 13.04. 2007 REQUESTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE RETURN OF INCOME ORI GINALLY FILED BY IT ON 28.10.2002 AS THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 148. DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE SHARE CAPITAL AMOUNT OF RS.27,50,000/- CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE-COMPANY FROM THE FOLLOWING FOUR PARTIES WAS VERIFIED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER:- SL. NO. NAME OF PARTY & ADDRESS AMOUNT 1. M/S. JAJOO FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 6, MANGOE LANE, KOLKATA-1 RS.7,00,000/- 2. M/S. LAXMI FINVEST PVT. LTD., 6, MANGOE LANE, KOLKATA-1 RS.5,00,000/- 3. M/S. INTEX INDIA TRADING PVT. LTD., 113, N.S. ROAD, KOLKATA-1 RS.5,50,000/- 4. SRI AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, 3A, AHIRA POKHAR 3 RD LANE, KOLKATA-1 RS.10,00,000/- TOTAL RS.27,50,000/- I.T.A. NO. 540/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 PAGE 3 OF 8 IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE S UNDER SECTION 133(6) THROUGH HIS INSPECTOR, WHICH COULD NOT BE SERVED. T HE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WAS CALLED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLI SH THE GENUINENESS OF THE RELEVANT TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING RECEIPTS OF SHA RE CAPITAL. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SAID RECEI PTS REPRESENTING CASH CREDITS IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, INVOKED SECTION 6 8 AND ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.27,50,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THE ASSESSM ENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147 VIDE AN ORDER DATED 19.11.2007. 5. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESESE THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE ADDRESS OF THE CONCERNED SHAREHOLDERS/CREDITORS . ACCORDINGLY, NEW ADDRESSES OF THE SAID SHAREHOLDERS/CREDITORS WERE F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THE MATTER WAS REMANDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE T HE VERIFICATION AT THE SAID NEW ADDRESSES. DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN SENT NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) TO THE NEW ADDRESSES OF THE SHAREHOLDERS/CREDITORS WHICH EITHER REMAINED UN-SER VED OR UN-COMPLIED WITH. WHEN THIS ASPECT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CERTAIN MORE DETAILS OF THE SHARE HOLDERS/CREDITORS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE NAMES AND A DDRESSES OF SOME OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES. WHEN TH E SAID DETAILS WERE AGAIN FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, LATTER ISSUED NOTICES TO THE CONCERNED DIRECTORS UNDER SEC TION 133(6). BUT EVEN THE SAID NOTICES FAILED TO INVOKE ANY POSITIVE RESP ONSE FROM THE CONCERNED PARTIES AS REPORTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN A TABULAR FORM AS UNDER:- I.T.A. NO. 540/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 PAGE 4 OF 8 SR. NO. NAME AND ADDRESS NOTICE U/S 133(6) ISSUED ON REMARKS 1. SMT. KANCHAN JANA, DIRECTOR, M/S. SRI LAXMI FINVEST (P) LTD., 4, N.S. ROAD, KOLKATA- 700 001 19/04/2013 RETURNED UN-SERVED WITH POSTAL REMARKS NOT KNOWN. 2. SRI BABLU SHAH, DIRECTOR, M/S. SRI LAXMI FINVEST (P) LTD., 4, N.S. ROAD, KOLKATA-700 001 19/04/2013 RETURNED UN-SERVED WITH POSTAL REMARKS NOT KNOWN. 3. DIRECTOR, M/S SRI LAXMI FINVEST (P) LTD., 18, R.N. MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 001 19/04/2013 RETURNED UN-SERVED WITH POSTAL REMARKS NOT KNOWN. 4. SRI NAVNEET KUMAR BIHANI, DIRECGTOR, M/S. JAJOO FINANCE & INVETSMENT LTD., 106, K.C. SINHA ROAD, GANGES GARDENS, SHIBPUR, HOWRAH-711 102 19/04/2013 RETURNED UN-SERVED WITH POSTAL REMARKS NOT KNOWN. 5. DIRECTOR, M/S. JAJOO FINANCE & INVESTMENT LTD., 108, SIKDAR PARA STREET, KOLKATA- 700 007 19/04/2013 NO REPLY RECEIVED TILL DATE 6. SRI SANJOY SONI, DIRECTOR, M/S. JAJOO FINANCE & INVESTMENT LTD., 207, M.G. ROAD, KOLKATA-700 007 19/04/2013 NO REPLY RECEIVED TILL DATE 7. M/S. RAMESH PODDAR, DIRECTOR, M/S. INTEX INDIA TRADING CO. (P) LTD., AD-227, SECTOR-1, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA-700 064 19/04/2013 NO REPLY RECEIVED TILL DATE 8. DIRECTOR, M/S. INTEX INDIA TRADING CO. (P) LTD., NO.2, BRABOURNE ROAD, 6 TH FLOOR, GOBIND BHAWAN, KOLKATA-700 001 19/04/2013 REPLY RECEIVED CONTENTS OF THE REPLY IS QUOTED BELOW: WE REGRET THAT RECORDS FOR THE REQUISITE PERIOD IS NOT PRESERVED BY US, WHICH IS ALSO PERMITTED BY LAW, HENCE WE ARE UNABLE TO FURNISH DESIRED INFORMATION THIS ALSO DISPOSES LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE NON-COMPLIANCES, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE IN T HE SECOND REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO EXPLAIN THE RELEVANT CASH CREDITS IN THE FORM OF SHARE I.T.A. NO. 540/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 PAGE 5 OF 8 CAPITAL INTRODUCTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 68. AS REP ORTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE, HOWE VER, ONCE AGAIN FAILED TO DO THE SAME SATISFACTORILY. WHEN THESE ADVERSE FIND INGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE CONFRONTED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSEE, RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRON OUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS.- LOVELY EXPORTS PVT. LIMITED [216 ITR 195] TO CONTEND THAT THE LIMITED ONUS THAT LAY ON IT TO EXPLAIN THE RELEVANT CASH CREDITS IN T HE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL INTRODUCTION WAS DULY DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 68. AFTER DISCUSSING THE SAID JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS C ITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GREAT DETAILS, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT FIND ME RIT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF R S.27,50,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN AT PAGES 29 & 30 IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- THE FACT OF THE CASE AND THE DISCUSSION ON CASE LA WS ABOVE LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 OF THE ASSE SSEE DESERVED TO BE DISMISSED. THE REASONS ARE ELABORATED HEREINA FTER. THE SUBMISSIONS OR THE ASSESSEE INTER-ALIA PROVES T HAT :_ (A) THERE IS NO PROOF OF THE IDENTITY OF THE 'SHARE HOLDER' WHO HAS MADE THE INVESTMENT. (B) THERE IS NO PROOF OF THE CAPACITY TO INVEST OF THE ALLEGED SHAREHOLDERS. (C) THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT PROVE D IN RESPECT OF THE FOUR CASES. THE ABOVE DEFAULT OF THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IS CO MPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT:- (I) THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPAN Y AND IT CAN ONLY ISSUE SHARES THROUGH PRIVATE PLACEMENT AMONGST FRIENDS AND RELATIVES, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THE I NVESTORS I.E. THEIR IDENTITY, THEIR CAPACITY TO PAY, THEIR BANK STATEME NTS, THE CORRESPONDENCE TO SHOW WHY A PREMIUM OF RS.90/- WAS PAID BY THEM ETC. (II) THE ASSESSEE ATTEMPTS TO DISCLAIM ITS ONUS BY CLAIMING THAT THE AO SHOULD APPROACH THE FOUR COMPANIES THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSESSING OFFICERS AFTER TRACING THE SAME, WHICH IS NOT THE LAW. I.T.A. NO. 540/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 PAGE 6 OF 8 (III) THE ASSESSEE ONLY RELIES ON SHARE APPLICATION S FORM AND MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS DATA TO BACK ITS CLAI M HIT THIS DOES NOT DISCHARGE THE PRIMARY ONUS OF THE ASSESSEE AT A LL. FURTHER THERE IS NO LEGAL DISPUTE THAT U/S.68 OF TH E ACT THE ASSESSEE IS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CAPACITY TO PAY AND THE G ENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE SHARE CAPITAL IS ALSO A CASH CRED IT. THE LAW LAID DOWN IN (CIT V. SOPHIA FINANCE LTD. (SUPRA) & CIT V . LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HAVE BEEN JUDICIALLY EXPLAINED AND ENUNCIATED TO HOLD THAT IN CASE OF PRIVATELY HELD COMPANIES, MERE IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IS NOT SUFFICIENT. THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE INFORM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED ANY OF THE LIMBS S PECIFIED IN THE CELEBRATED CASE OF SHANKAR INDUSTRIES V. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 CAL. AND OTHERS. THE ASSESSEE, BESIDES COPIES OF TH E ALLEGED SHARE APPLICATIONS, HAS NO OTHER EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT EVEN ABLE TO PROVE THE TRANSACTIONS THROUGH ITS OWN BANK ACCO UNTS AND THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS. EVEN NO ADDRESS OR PAN IS AVAILABLE WHICH CAN BE VERIFIED. THE SHAREHOLDERS R EGISTERS ARE ALSO NO PRODUCED TO EXPLAIN THE LATEST POSITION OF SUCH SHARES. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V. NOVA PROM OTERS & FINLEASE LTD. (SUPRA) HAS DECLARED THAT MERE BANKIN G CHANNEL USED OR REGISTERS OF COMPANIES INFORMED OF THE SHARES BE ING ALLOTTED, ARE ONLY NEUTRAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THESE DO NOT PRO VE THE CASE FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN PRESENT CASE THE FULL DETAILS ARE NOT MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE INQUIRIES BY THE AO, BOTH D URING THE ASSESSMENT AND THRICE DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS , HAVE CONCLUSIVELY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CASE. TH E FINANCIAL HEALTH OF THE COMPANY WAS NOT SUCH THAT IT COULD COMMAND A SHARE PREMIUM OF RS.90/- PER SHARE AND NO DIVIDENDS ARE B EING PAID BY IT ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDUCED NO EVIDENCE OF THE P ROOF OF RESOURCE OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBER AS MANDATED BY THE DELHI HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. NIPUN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. (SUPRA). AS REGARDS THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO S HOULD HAVE ENFORCED ATTENDANCE THROUGH THE RESPECTIVE JURISDIC TIONAL ASSESSING OFFICERS ETC. OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, SUCH A REQU EST IS FIT ONLY TO BE REJECTED, THE REASONS ARE ALREADY SUPPLIED IN THE C ASE LAW OF CIT V. NIPUN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), THE O NUS IS ONLY ON THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ON THE AO, WHO HAS THRICE ATTE MPTED TO VERIFY THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALREADY. IN A PRI VATE LIMITED COMPANY THERE IS A CONTINUING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND ITS SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND IT IS ONLY THE ASSESSEE W HO IS BEST PLACED TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTIONS OF ITS 'FRIENDS & RELAT IVES' WHO HAVE INVESTED IN THE SHARES. THE OVERWHELMING BURDEN PLACED IN THE ASSESSEE ON T HE CASE LAWS DISCUSSED ABOVE ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE AO WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT EXPLAIN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF I.T.A. NO. 540/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 PAGE 7 OF 8 RS.27,50,000/- INTRODUCED IN THE GARB OF FOUR INVES TING COMPANIES' SUBSCRIPTIONS. THEREFORE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT CERTAIN SPECIFIC DETAILS ABOUT THE C ONCERNED SHAREHOLDERS/CREDITORS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). IN THIS REGARD, HE HAS INVITED OUR AT TENTION TO SUCH DETAILS GIVEN ON PAGE NO. 9 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)S IMPUG NED ORDER AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE MA DE AN ENQUIRY ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID DETAILS INCLUDING ESPECIALLY THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS OF THE CONCERNED CREDITORS GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSEE. HOWEVER, AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. D.R., THE NUMBERS STAT ED TO BE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS OF THE CONCERNED SHAREHOLDERS/CREDI TORS DO NOT APPEAR TO BE THE CORRECT PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS. MOREOV ER, THE SAME WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A PPEALS) ALONG WITH THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE CONCERNED COMPANIES IN W HOSE NAMES THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE-COM PANY IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS SHARE CAPITAL AND THE INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AT THE SAID ADDRE SSES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ITSELF DID NOT INVOKE ANY POSITIVE RESPONSE. AS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R., EVEN INQUIRY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE ADDRESSES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS THOSE OF DIR ECTORS OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANIES DID NOT BRING ANY POSITIVE REA SON TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE ASSESSEES CASE. AS REGARDS THE RE LIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LIMITED (SUPRA) TO C ONTEND THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAVING ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE CONCERNED SHAREHOLDERS/CREDITORS, THERE WAS NO CASE FOR MAKIN G ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68, THE LD. D.R. HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS I.T.A. NO. 540/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-2003 PAGE 8 OF 8 IMPUGNED ORDER HAS DEALT WITH THIS STAND OF THE ASS ESSEE ELABORATELY IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND AS RIGHTLY HELD BY HIM, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY INVOLVING PRIVATE PLACEMENT OF SHARES. IN ANY CASE, THE ONUS IN THIS REGARD TO EXPLAIN THE RELEVANT CASH CREDIT IN TERMS OF SEC TION 68 IS ON THE ASSESSEE AND IT CANNOT BE SAID IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT IT HAS SATISFACTORILY DISCHARGED THE SAME BY EVEN ESTABLIS HING THE IDENTITY OF THE CONCERNED SHAREHOLDERS/CREDITORS. AS SUCH, CONSIDER ING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.27,5 0,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL MONEY BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED A ND UPHOLDING THE SAME, I DISMISS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPE AL. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MARCH 17, 201 7. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 17 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 COPIES TO : (1) SUSHILA STEEL COMPLEX (P) LIMITED, 26, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, KOLKATA-700 017 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXII, KO LKATA; (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.