M/s Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd., Howrah V. ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 551/KOL/2016

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the addition of Rs. 4,07,30,000 as unexplained share application money under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the assessee had provided adequate evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the shareholders, and the addition was made without proper basis. The Tribunal examined the proceedings under Sections 143(3), 147, and 263, and noted that the assessee had complied with all procedural requirements and provided substantial documentary evidence, including responses to notices under Sections 133(6) and 131. The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for not adequately considering the evidence provided and for relying on the non-appearance of directors as a ground for addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 128688 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2016
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Sreeleathers, ITO vs. M/s. Kemex Engineering (P) Ltd., Pr. Commissioner vs M/s Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt Ltd, Crystal Networks Pvt Ltd, M/s Aastha Vincom Pvt Ltd vs ITO, M/s Lucky Agencies Pvt Ltd vs ITO, M/s One Point Commercial Pvt Ltd vs ITO, M/s Inspa Interior & Exterior Products Pvt Ltd vs ITO, M/s Ajit Vanijya Pvt Ltd vs ITO, M/s Mahacol Tie Up (P) Ltd vs ITO, M/s Khushi Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, M/s Steelex India (P) Ltd vs ITO, CIT vs. Dataware Pvt. Ltd., CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms P. Ltd., Exoimp Resources (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Question of law; Onus to prove; Time period of passing order; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside; Liquidation
• Section: 147; 131; 68; 148; 263; 143(3); 133(6); 143(1); 195; 250; 13; 22

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता म ें IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्ष े त्र) एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, ल े खा सदस्य क े समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd...................................Appellant [PAN: AADCB 0556 A] Vs. ITO, Ward-5(3) Kolkata.........................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. S. M. Surana, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswash, Addl. CIT, D/R, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : March 1 st , 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : May 25 th , 2023 ORDER Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member: This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2008-09 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-6, Kolkata [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’] evenly dated 23.02.2016 arising out of the I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 25 assessment order framed u/s 143(3)/263/147 of the Act dated 24.03.2014. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. For that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. 2. For that the Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO which was passed in post haste, the hearing was fixed toward the end of limitation period when the order u/s 263 was passed long back. 3. For that the addition of share capital in the assessment was bad in law since the issue of the share capital was not the subject matter of the reasons recorded, there was nothing on record to show that any undisclosed income has come to the notice of the AO in the course of the reassessment proceedings so as to add the same while computing the total income in the assessment as a result of proceedings u/s 147. 4. For that the Ld. C.I.T(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO which was passed without carrying out the specific directions of the Ld CIT in order order u/s 263. 5. For that the Ld. C.I.T(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO making the addition of Rs. 4,07,30,128/- being the share capital received from the share holders when the identity of the shareholders, genuineness of the entry and credit worthiness of the share applicants was prove for which all the evidences were filed, the assessee duly discharged its onus to prove the cash credits and the Ld AO failed bring any evidence on records to prove that the evidences filed by the assessee were not reliable. 6. For that the Ld. C.I.T(A) erred in confirming the addition of the share capital contribution simply because the directors of the share holder companies did not appear in spite of service of summons. 7. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the addition of share capital u/s 68 was not justified. 8. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the CIT(A) be modified and the assessee be given the relief prayed for. 9. For that the assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing.” I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 25 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of share dealing and investment. Income of Rs. 187/- declared in the return for AY 2008-09 filed on 16.05.2008. Initially return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, thereafter, reassessment proceedings were carried out by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was framed on 08.04.2010 determining total income at Rs. 17,400/-. Thereafter ld. Pr. CIT called for the reassessment proceedings records and issued notice u/s 263 of the Act for carrying out the revisionary proceedings and finally framed the order u/s 263 of the Act on 28.03.2013 setting aside the assessment order dated 08.04.2010 directing ld. AO to carry out the assessment proceedings in light of the direction given in the order u/s 263 of the Act and the crux of the said directions read as follows: i) Examine the genuineness and source of share capital, not on a test check basis, but in respect of each and every shareholder by conducting independent enquiry not through the assessee. The bank account for the entire period should be examined in the course of verification to find out the money trail of the share capital. ii) Further the A.O. should examine the directors as well as examine the circumstances which necessitated the change in directorship if applicable. He should examine them on oath to verify their credentials as director and reach a logical conclusion regarding the controlling interest. iii) The A.O. is directed examine the source of realization from the liquidation of assets shown in the balance sheet after the change of Directors, if any after conducting the inquiries & verification as directed above, the A.O. should pass a speaking order, proving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 4. In compliance to the order u/s 263 of the Act, ld. AO again carried out the assessment proceedings and various information I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 25 as called for were submitted/filed by the assessee. Except for the personal presence of the directors of all the shareholder companies through whom the assessee company received share application money of Rs. 4,07,30,128/-, the assessee filed all the relevant documents in support of the justification for the investment made by the share applicants in the assessee company. However, ld. AO was not satisfied and concluded the assessment after making an addition u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained share application money of Rs. 4,07,30,000/- and assessed the income at Rs. 4,07,30,320/- . 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) challenging the addition made u/s 68 of the Act for the alleged unexplained share application money. It was stated by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) that notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act were duly received by the share applicants and they have given reply directly to ld. AO. Directors of the appellant company have also replied to summons issued u/s 131 of the Act along with relevant details and documents. Except appearing in person before ld. AO all the share applicants have provided all the requisite documents to prove their identity, to prove the genuineness of the transactions and have also submitted the financial statements to prove their creditworthiness and therefore, personal appearance was irrelevant. Written submissions were also filed along with all the details. However, ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and taking into consideration various decisions and judgments confirmed the addition made by ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act. The relevant finding of ld. CIT(A) given in para 3.15 of the impugned order reads as follows: I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 of 25 “3.15. As discussed above, the directors of the subscriber/shareholder companies did not respond to the AO’s summons issued U/s. 131 and the assessee also failed to produce them before the AO. It has been stated that sufficient details had been submitted by the share applicants/subscribers in response to notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act which prove that the transactions were genuine. Some other case laws were also relied upon. Be that as it may, it is settled that mere furnishing of copies of income-tax returns, details of payments through banking challans etc. would not establish the genuineness of the share capital considering the attendant circumstances discussed by the Ld. CIT and the AO. In view of the failure of the appellant to ensure attendance of the directors of the shareholder companies, the assessee failed to prove the identity and capacity of the purported shareholders along with the genuineness of the transactions. These being the facts of the case and also considering the widely prevalent practice of conversion of unaccounted money through the garb of investment in the share capital of a company and the settled legal position discussed above, I hold that the AO was right in treating the share application money including share premium credited in the books of the appellant company as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the appellant company u/s 68 of the Act. The addition of Rs. 4,07,30,000/- is therefore, confirmed.” 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the finding of ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained share application money of Rs. 4,07,30,000/-. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had discharged its primary onus of proving the identity, capacity and genuineness of the shareholders by filing all the details of the share applicants necessary to prove so. Further, it is submitted that all the share applicants have responded to the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act and also filed the details directly to ld. AO. So far as the personal appearance of the share applicants before ld. AO, it was submitted that the assessee approached to the share applicants I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 25 requesting them to appear before ld. AO but it was stated by the managing directors of the shareholder companies that they have directly provided all the requisite documents to ld. AO to prove their identity, genuineness of the transaction and also submitted the financial statements to prove their creditworthiness. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further, submitted that no discrepancy has been noticed in the financial statements filed by the share applicant companies which are all engaged in regular business and duly registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. It was also submitted that in most of the cases, the alleged shareholder companies have passed through the scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. Our attention was also drawn to the paperbook containing 261 pages wherein the assessee has filed the details of the financial statements of the company, replies of all the shareholders in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act, reply of the directors to the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act. In the second paperbook containing 35 pages, the assessee referred to the various assessment orders passed in some of the alleged shareholder companies and also the copy of master data appearing in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs as on date reflecting that all these companies are active companies as on date also and regularly uploading Annual Return and Balance Sheets. The details so filed are reproduced below: “1. MCA Master Data and Assessment Order u/s 143(3)/147 dated 08.08.2017 for A.Y 2010-11 of M/s Masta Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 2. MCA Master Data and Assessment Order u/s 143(3)/147 dated 15.02.2010 for A.Y 2008-09, Assessment Order u/s 143(3) dated 01.12.2016 for A.Y 2014-15 of M/s Gupta Electrotrade Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known as Baghbaan Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd.) I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 25 3. MCA Master Data and Assessment Order u/s 143(3) dated 22.02.2016 for A.Y 2013-14 of M/s Sujali Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. 4. MCA Master Data and Assessment Order u/s 144/143(3) dated 15.03.2016 for A.Y 2013-14 of M/s Bogenvilia Goods Pvt. Ltd. 5. MCA Master Data of Tulsi tracom Pvt. Ltd., Namaskar Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. (Converted into LLP namely Namskar Vyapaar LLP), Panchmukhi Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Daanvir commodities Pvt. Ltd., Araballi Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., Ghanshyam Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. and Anjaniputra Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.” 9. Further, ld. Counsel for the assessee, apart from heavily relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sreeleathers reported in [2022] 448 ITR 332 (Calcutta) and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Kemex Engineering (P) Ltd. in ITA No.75/Kol/2021 order dated 01.02.2023 and the following decisions: “1. Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner vs M/s Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt Ltd in Special leave Petition No. 12644/2018 pronounced on 23.04.2018 regarding non appearance of directors cannot be a ground to make addition u/s 68. 2. Judgement of Calcutta High Court in the case of Crystal Networks Pvt Ltd (Share capital allowed even when the notice for summon u/s 131 was unserved) 3. Judgement of Kolkata ITAT in the case of M/s Aastha Vincom Pvt Ltd vs ITO, Ward- 1(4) vide ITA No: 2269/KOL/2019 pronounced on 26.08.2022 (Share Capital allowed post revision by CIT u/s 263 since assessee was not required to prove the purpose for charging premium, non- compliance of notice cannot be taken as ground to make addition when the same was duly served and source of investment need not be out of taxable income.) I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 of 25 4. Judgement of Kolkata ITAT in the case of ITO vs Cygnus Developers(l) Pvt Ltd vide ITA No: 282/KOL/20212 pronounced on 02.03.2016 (Share Capital allowed when addition was made only for mere non- compliance of director of subscriber company in response to summons u/s 131) 5. Judgement of Kolkata ITAT in the case of M/s Lucky Agencies Pvt Ltd vs ITO, Ward- 1(4) vide ITA No: 2501/KOL/2019 pronounced on 23.02.2023. (Share Capital allowed on the ground that assessee had filed all documents to prove identity and creditworthiness of investors and genuineness of transactions only mere non- compliance of director of assessee company and subscriber company in response to summons u/s 131) 6. Judgement of Kolkata ITAT in the case of M/s One Point Commercial Pvt Ltd vs ITO, Ward- 6(3) vide ITA No: 473/KOL/2019 (Share Capital allowed on the ground that assessee had filed all documents to prove identity and creditworthiness of investors and genuineness of transactions only mere non- compliance of director of assessee company and subscriber company in response to summons u/s 131 Even addition cannot be made u/s 68 since the amended provisions to prove source of source were applicable from 01.04.2013) 7. Judgement of Kolkata ITAT in the case of M/s Inspa Interior & Exterior Products Pvt Ltd vs ITO vide ITA No: 529/Kol/2020 pronounced on 23.02.2023 (Share Capital allowed on the ground that assessee had filed all documents to prove identity and creditworthiness of investors and genuineness of transactions. Merc non- compliance of director of assessee company and subscriber company in response to summons u/s 131 cannot be a ground to make addition Even addition cannot be made u/s 68 since the amended provisions to prove source of source were applicable from 01.04.2013) 8. Judgement of Kolkata ITAT in the case of M/s Ajit Vanijya Pvt Ltd vs ITO vide ITA No: 2448/Kol/2017 pronounced on 23.02.2023 Share Capital allowed on the ground that assessee had filed all documents to prove identity and creditworthiness of investors and genuineness of transactions. Even addition cannot be made u/s 68 I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 of 25 since the amended provisions to prove source of source were applicable from 01.04.2013 9. Judgement of Kolkata ITAT in the case of M/s Mahacol Tie Up (P) Ltd vs ITO vide ITA No: 2269/Kol/2019 pronounced on 12.10.2022 Share Capital allowed on the ground that assessee had filed all documents to prove identity and creditworthiness of investors and genuineness of transactions. Even double addition cannot be made since the addition has already been made in the hands of subscriber company u/s 68. 10. Judgement of Kolkata ITAT in the case of M/s Khushi Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO vide ITA No: 195/Kol/2022 pronounced on 31.10.2022 (Share Capital allowed on the ground that assessee had filed all documents to prove identity and creditworthiness of investors and genuineness of transactions only mere non- compliance of director of assesee company and subscriber company in response to summons u/s 131 Even addition cannot be made u/s 68 since the amended provisions were applicable from 01.04.2013) 11. Judgement of Kolkata ITAT in the case of M/s Steelex India (P) Ltd vs ITO vide ITA No: 2666/Kol/2019 pronounced on 09.09.2022” 10. On the other hand, ld. D/R vehemently argued relying heavily on the finding of both the lower authorities further stating that the alleged share applicant companies are jama-kharchi and accommodation entry providers not having any regular business activity and are merely used as conduit for rotation of money in order to provide accommodation entries and thus, the alleged transaction is not genuine and the creditworthiness of the share applicant companies is not proved. 11. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the judgments and decisions referred by ld. Counsel for the assessee and also gone I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 of 25 through the decisions referred in the impugned order. The issue for our consideration is whether ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of ld. AO making addition of Rs. 4,07,30,000/- u/s 68 of the Act treating the share application money/share capital received during the year as unexplained. We notice that during the year under consideration the assessee has received share application money against issue of equity shares having face value of Rs. 10/- and security premium of Rs. 240/- and received sum of Rs. 4,07,30,000/- from the following share applicants: S.No. Name, Address & PAN of Applicants No. of Shares Share Capital (Rs.) Premium (Rs.) Total (Rs.) 1 Anjaniputra Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. 33/2A, Malanga Lane, Kolkata - 700 012 PAN - AAGCA8240D 12600 126,000.00 3,024,000.00 3,150,000.00 2 Araballi Commotrade Pvt Ltd. 3, Bentinck Street Kolkata - 700 001 PAN-AAGCA7979P 12000 120,000.00 2,880,000.00 3,000,000.00 3 Baghbaan Vyapaar Pvt Ltd. 21-B; Canning Street, Kolkata - 700 001 PAN-AADCB0528L 8000 80,000.00 1,920,000.00 2,000,000.00 4 Bhikshu Dealer Pvt Ltd. 2, Raja Woodmunt Street, Kolkata - 700 001 PAN-AADCB0673N 15320 153,200.00 3,676,800.00 3,830,000.00 5 Bogenvilia Goods Pvt. Ltd. 33/2A, Malanga Lane, Kolkata - 700 012 PAN - AADCB0808R 10000 100,000.00 2,400^)00.00 2,500,000.00 6 Daanvir Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 133, Canning Street, Kolkata - 700 001 PAN - AACCD5354M 12600 126,000.00 3,024,000.00 3,150,000.00 7 Debasmita Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 33/2A, Malanga Lane, Kolkata - 700 012 PAN-AACCD5621M 12000 120,000.00 2,880,000.00 3,000,000.00 8 Ghanshyam Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. 33/2A, Malanga Lane. Kolkata - 700 012 PAN - AADCG0634N 11000 110,000.00 2,640,000.00 2,750,000.00 9 Hasta Vyapaar Pvt Ltd. P-4, N.H.B.A Road, Kolkata - 700 001 PAN - AABCH8115P 8200 92,000.00 2,208,000.00 2,300,000.00 I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 25 10 Jamuna Tradecom Pvt Ltd. 3, Bentinck Street, Kolkata - 700 001 PAN -AABCJ9440R 11300 113,000.00 2,712,000.00 2.825,000.00 11 Namaskar Vyapaar Pvt Ltd. 33/2A, Malanga Lane, Kolkata - 700 012 PAN - AACCN6952H 11200 112,000.00 2,688,000.00 2,800,000.00 12 Panchmukhi Tracom Pvt. Ltd. 33/2A, Malanga Lane, Kolkata - 700 012 PAN - AAECP5495K 12600 126,000.00 3,024,000.00 3,150,000.00 13 Sujali Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. 3, Bentinck Street, Kolkata - 700 001 PAN - AAKCS6637A 11000 110,000.00 2,640,000.00 2,750,000.00 14 Tulsi Tracom Pvt Ltd. 2, Raja Woodmunt Street Kolkata - 700 001 PAN-AACCT6121A 14100 141,000.00 3,384,000.00 3,525,000.00 TOTAL 162920 1,629,200.00 39,100,800.00 40,730,000.00 12. We further, note that the assessee company firstly passed through reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act completed vide order dated 08.04.2010. Thereafter, revisionary proceedings were carried out regarding the proper enquiry not conducted by ld. AO in relation to the share application money received during the year. Though the assessee filed all the details including confirmation letters along with PAN, copy of bank statements, income tax return, balance sheet of subscribing companies and the relevant documents regarding issue of shares, share application form prepared for the purpose of Companies Act. However, in the revisionary proceedings which were completed on 28.03.2013, the reassessment order of ld. AO was set aside with the direction to examine the genuineness and source of the share capital and also to examine the directors on oath, change of the directorship, liquidation of assets and conducting enquiries and verification as directed in the revisionary order. I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 of 25 13. We, further, notice that in the assessment proceedings carried out in compliance to the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee has again filed all the relevant documents as needed to prove the identity of the share applicants, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the share applicants thereby discharging its primary onus casted upon it under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. However, ld. AO was not satisfied and he issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act and summon u/s 131 of the Act to the share applicant companies as well as the directors respectively. Except for not appearing personally before ld. AO, all the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were complied and even with regard to summons u/s 131 of the Act replies were filed along with the documents but showing the inability to appear in person. 14. We, further, notice that the documents filed by the assessee to explain the alleged receipt of share application money and share premium has not been doubted by any of the lower authorities. It is not the case of the Revenue that the share applicant companies were not having sufficient funds to apply in the equity shares capital of the assessee company. Even ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has stated that sufficient details have been submitted by share applicants/subscribers in response to the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act which proved that the transactions were genuine. Ld. CIT(A) has, thus, confirmed that the transactions were genuine but still observed mere furnishing of copies of income tax return, details of payment through banking channels etc. would not establish the genuineness of the share capital. I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 of 25 15. We are surprised to note that when the assessee has discharged its onus by filing all necessary details and has explained the nature and source and even when the share applicant companies have independently replied to ld. AO, but still if the ld. AO is not satisfied then he has to mention the reason. Just because the directors of the share applicant companies have not appeared in person cannot be a ground to treat the alleged share application money as unexplained. When all the share applicant companies are duly registered with the Registrar of Companies which is further proved by the master data filed by the assessee what stops the Revenue authorities to use the powers provided under the Income Tax Act to call for the persons to appear personally before them and to record the statement. Such duty cannot be solely casted upon the assessee considering the fact that the alleged sum was received during the financial year 2007-08 and the proceedings in compliance to 263 order were carried out after six years. There are plethora of decisions where it has been held that merely for not appearing in person before ld. AO cannot be a ground to treat the receipts of share application money as unexplained. 16. We drew support from the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kemex Engineering (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein similar issue was under consideration, however, the facts of the present assessee are on much better footing since in the instant case the share subscribers have furnished the requisite information directly to ld. AO. Relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced below: “7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and have given our thoughtful consideration to the I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 14 of 25 elaborate observations and findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) while giving relief to the assessee. At the outset, we note that notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act were issued by the Ld. AO to all the five subscribers, who had replied giving all the details and documents required by the Ld. AO along with confirming the transaction of they making investment in the share capital of the assessee. We also take note of the fact that the share subscribers had furnished copies of their ITR acknowledgments which showed that each of them were regular income tax assessees, testifying their identity. 7.1. From the perusal of the paper book and the documents placed therein, it is seen that all the share applicants are (i) income tax assessees, (ii) they are filing their income tax returns, (iii) share application form and allotment letter is available on record, (iv) share application money was made by account payee cheques, (v) details of the bank accounts belonging to share applicants and their bank statements, (vi) in none of the transactions there are any deposit of cash before issuing cheques to the assessee, (vii) all the share applicants are having substantial creditworthiness represented by their capital and reserves. 7.2. We also take note of the elaborate and well reasoned findings and decisions arrived at by the Ld. CIT(A) by taking into consideration all the details and documents placed on record. The relevant findings and decisions from the following paras are extracted as under: “4.5. To sum up the foregoing, it is observed that all the notices u/s. 133(6) were served at the respective addresses of ach of the five shareholders by registered post. The share subscribers had furnished copies of income-tax Acknowledgments which showed that each of them were regular income-tax assessees who were assessed in their own rights with reference to their audited financial results. These facts established the identity of the share applicants. It is further noted that each of the share subscriber had furnished copies of the audited accounts for the FY 2011-12. Examination of these accounts revealed that each share subscribing company was having substantial own funds in the form of capital & reserves which were several times more than the share subscription amount paid to the appellant. In find that only a fraction of the net owned funds of the respective subscribing companies was invested in assessee’s equity shares. The investments made by each of the share subscribers were paid by way of account payee cheques and/or RTGS and there was no prior cash deposit in their bank accounts. In view of the aforesaid facts it can be safely inferred that the assessee had discharged its I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 of 25 onus of substantiating the creditworthiness of the shareholders. The shareholders had also furnished copies of their share allotment advices. They had also explained the nature of their respective source of funds. All these facts considered cumulatively substantiate the genuineness of the transactions involving subscription of share capital. 4.6. It is noted that in the impugned order much emphasis was placed on the act that the shareholders did not respond to the notices u/s. 131. I however, find that although the share subscribing companies did not appear before the AO yet the material documents requisitioned by the AO in his notice u/s. 131 had already been furnished before the AO by the shareholders. From the perusal of the assessment order, I find that save & except making an assertion that the Directors of the share applicant companies failed to appear beore him, the AO did not bring on record any substantive material to disprove the documentary evidences which the appellant as well as the share subscribers had placed on AO’s record in support of the share subscription transactions. The material available on record shows that the AO had also made independent enquiries from the shareholders u/d. 133(6) of the Act. The facts and circumstances furnished by the shareholders in response thereto, supported the AR’s contention that the identity of all the five share subscribing companies stood established. Referring to the copies of the bank statements, the AR established that payment of subscription amounts were recorded in the bank statements of the respective companies. The entries in the bank statement proved that the share subscription amount was transferred through banking channel. Besides the entries in the bank statements also substantiated that before payment of share subscription mounts, no cash was deposited in the bank accounts of the subscribing companies. The AR further pointed out that appellant had furnished explanations before the AO with regard to immediate sources from which share subscription amounts were paid. On these facts therefore, I find that in terms of section 106 of the Evidence Act, the creditworthiness of the share subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions could not have been doubted by the AO merely on the ground that Directors of the share subscribers did not appear before the AO for verification. Gainful reference in this regard may be made to following observations made the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Limited (397 ITR 136). “6. The Tribunal has considered that the Assessee has produced on record the documents to establish the genuineness of the party such as PAN of all the creditors along with the confirmation, their bank I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 16 of 25 statements showing payment of share application money. It was also observed by the Tribunal that the Assessee has also produced the entire record regarding issuance of shares i.e. allotment of shares to these parties, their share application forms, allotment letters and share certificates, so also the books of account. The balance sheet and profit and loss account of these persons disclosed that these persons had sufficient funds in their accounts for investing in the shares of the Assessee. In view of these voluminous documentary evidence, only because those persons had not appeared before the Assessing Officer would not negate the case of the assessee. The judgment in case of Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (supra) would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 4.8. There is per se no quarrel with the proposition put forth by the AO that m tax proceedings the AO is not required to accept apparent as real. The AO has both duty as well as obligation to bring out the truth and present the real facts. For that purpose the AO is permitted to undertake investigation and enquiries so as to unearth the actual and real facts. The AO has been given power by the Legislature to prove that apparent is not real and thereafter make the assessment with reference to actual state of affairs. There is also no denial that the AO while assessing the income is permitted to take into consideration the human probabilities and if he proves that the conduct of the parties is not in conformity with the actions of prudent person then he may overlook the form of the transaction and find out the substance of the transaction and determine the tax consequences based on the real facts. In the impugned order the AO has doubted the genuineness of the entire transaction on the ground that it was against the human probability that the companies would invest in shares of the appellant company. The AO has also alleged that the unaccounted monies belonging to the assessee and ploughed back in the form of share capital by adopting the modus operandi where the unaccounted cash was rotated in four-five layers and thereafter the money was brought into the assessee’s bank account in the form of share capital. I however find that before these conclusions were recorded the AO himself did not bring on record sufficient tangible and cogent material to support his conclusion that the amount credited in the assessee’s books in the form of share capital and premium actually represented assessee’s undisclosed income. 4.15. Applying the judicial principles laid down in the above decisions to the appellant’s case. I find that the AO had made addition u/s. 68 without proper application of mine and incorrect appreciation of the relevant provisions of the Act. In the above judicial decisions, it has I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 of 25 been held that before an addition u/s. 68 is made, it is necessary for the AO to bring on record irrefutable material or evidence which would prove that there was no valid issuance of the shares and for that reason the assessee had failed to prove identity & creditworthiness of the shareholders and also failed to substantiate genuineness. If these touchstones are applied to the appellant’s case then I find that the copies income tax acknowledgments and service of notices at their addresses established the identity of all the share subscribers. In the balance sheets of the respective share subscribers, the investments in assessee’s share were recorded and each subscriber in its balance sheet had disclosed sufficiently large investible funds. The assessee had also filed copies of the bank statements of the respective share subscribing companies which established that the share subscription amounts were received through banking channel. The sources of making payment were also furnished and the entries in bank statements indicated that there was no deposit of cash prior to clearance of the cheques in assessee’s favour. All these facts and documents considered cumulatively establish that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving creditworthiness of the share sub subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions. I therefore hold that the AO was not justified in making the impugned addition of Rs.,1,82,50,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act which is accordingly deleted. These grounds are therefore allowed.” 7.3. Before arriving at our finding, we refer to the following judicial precedents to buttress our observations and conclusions: i) The decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT v. Dataware Pvt. Ltd. in ITAT No. 263 of 2011 dated 21.09.2011 wherein Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that “After getting the PAN number and getting the information that the creditor is assessed under the Act, the Assessing officer should enquire from the Assessing Officer of the creditor as to the genuineness" of the transaction and whether such transaction has been accepted by the Assessing officer of the creditor but instead of adopting such course, the Assessing officer himself could not enter into the return of the creditor and brand the same as unworthy of credence.” ii) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Creative World Telefilms P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Mad) wherein it was held as under: I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 18 of 25 “In the case in hand, it was not disputed that the assessee had given the details of name and address of the shareholder, their PAN/GIR number and had also given the cheque number, name of the bank. It was expected on the part of the Assessing Officer to make proper investigation and reach the shareholders. The Assessing Officer did nothing except issuing summons which were ultimately returned back with an endorsement "not traceable". The Assessing Officer ought to have found out their details through PAN cards, bank account details or from their bankers so as to reach the shareholders since all the relevant material details and particulars were given by the assessee to the Assessing Officer. In the above circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal could not be faulted. No substantial question of law was involved in the appeal.'' iii) Judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Exoimp Resources (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), wherein it was held as follows: “It is incumbent upon the Assessing Authority to examine the explanation of the creditor and arrive at a conclusion as to whether the explanation was satisfactory. The conclusion arrived by the Assessing Authority is to be communicated to the assessee if such explanation is not considered satisfactory. If thereupon the assessee submits any comments or furnishes further information, in that event, the Assessing Authority has to examine the same and arrive at his own conclusion. The inbuilt safeguard provided in section 68 cannot be ignored by the Assessing Authority at his sweet will. The Assessing Authority can add the share capital as undisclosed income if no explanation is offered by the assessee. But since the details/explanations were offered, it was incumbent on the Assessing Authority to examine the same and arrive at a cogent conclusion. Assessing Officer having failed to discharge such obligation the addition is not sustainable in law.., case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) that where share application money.” 7.4. In the course of assessment proceeding, Ld. AO directed the assessee to produce the director of the assessee and also the directors of the subscriber companies along with relevant documentary evidence and details which was not complied with in full. Ld. Counsel submitted that mere non-appearance of directors is no basis for invoking provisions of section 68 of the act for which he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein it was held as under: I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 19 of 25 “In this case the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the revenue that the said creditors were the income-tax assessees. Their index number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the assessee, did not pursue the matter further. The revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were credit-worthy or were such who could advance the alleged loans. There was no effort made to pursue the so-called alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the assessee could not do any further. In the premises, if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had discharged the burden that lay on him, then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion was based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such could arise. The High Court was, therefore, right in refusing to refer the questions sought for. Decision of the High Court affirmed.” 8. We notice that all the details were very much placed before the Assessing Officer but while framing the assessment, no efforts have been made by the Assessing Officer to examine the correctness of various proof, filed by the assessee by carrying out any investigation. Merely for non-appearance of the directors, the ld. Assessing Officer disregarded all these documents which have been placed before various statutory authorities including Registrar Of Companies, Income Tax Department and Schedule Banks. The assessee by way of filing all these documents necessary to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the alleged transaction, has discharged the initial burden casted upon it under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Unless and until, the assessing authority finds any lacuna or adversity or defect in the said documents, the burden to prove remains on the Revenue authorities. In the instant case, ld. Assessing Officer failed to discharge the burden and summarily disregarded the documents filed by the assessee by merely referring to some decisions and not going into the facts of the case except referring to the price per share. 9. We further observe that provision for examining the source of source under the provisions of section 68 of the Act has been brought in by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 as per which “where an assessee is a company (not being a company in which public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 of 25 whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory unless: a) the person being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited and b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer has been found to be satisfactory.” Since the instant appeal pertains to assessment year 2012-13, and the said amendment brought in by Finance Act 2012 is effective from 01.04.2013, it is not applicable on the case before us. Even otherwise, it is not in dispute that the assessee has filed all the relevant documents of the share subscriber companies and further, in order to prove the source of source, copies of bank statements, audited balance sheets of all the nine subscriber companies are placed on record. 10. As far as the decision of Coordinate bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Bishakha Sales Pvt. Ltd. (supra) referred by the Assessing Officer in making the addition, in our view, it does not support the addition as the said decision is delivered in the context of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act on the issue of enquiry regarding huge premium received on share application. 11. Further, in respect of ground nos. 3, 4 and 5, reference to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (412 ITR 161) is found to be distinguishable on facts in as much as in the said decision, Ld. AO has made extensive enquiries and some of investors were found to be non-existent. Upon going through the facts involved in that judgment, it is noted that, in the decided case the AO had made extensive enquiries and from that he had found that some of the investor companies were non-existent, which is certainly not the case before the undersigned. In the decided case, certain investor companies also failed to produce their bank statements proving the source for making investments in assessee company. In the facts o f the present case however not only have the shareholders furnished their bank statements and investment schedules to establish the source of funds but they have also furnished their respective sources of funds in response to notices issued by the AO u/s. 133(6) of the Act. 12. We, therefore, respectfully following the judgment referred hereinabove by the Hon’ble Courts and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, are of considered view that since the assessee has sufficiently explained the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscriber companies and the genuineness of the I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 21 of 25 transaction of applying for the equity shares of the assessee company and since nothing contrary to the evidence filed by the assessee has been placed on record by the Revenue, except the reason that the directors failed to appear to the summons issued u/s. 131 of the Act, we find no reason to interfere with the meritorious finding of the Ld. CIT(A). We accordingly dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue in this respect. 13. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.” 17. Further, we find that recently the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Sreeleathers (supra) adjudicating similar issue relating to the addition u/s 68 of the Act and dealing with the onus casted upon the assessee to establish the existence, genuineness and creditworthiness of the new loans held as follows: “3. We have heard Mr. Vipul Kundalia, learned Senior Standing Counsel along with Mr. Anurag Roy, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Avratosh Mazumder, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Avra Mazumder and Mr. Md. Bilwal Hossain, learned Advocates for the respondents. 4. Before we examine the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal and consider whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal we need to take note of section 68 of the Act. This provision deals with cash credits. It states that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. The crucial words in the said provision are "assessee offers no explanation". This would mean where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regard the amount credited in the books maintained by the assessee. No doubt the Income-tax Act places the burden of proof on the tax payer. However, this is only the initial burden. In cases where the assessee offers an explanation to the credit by placing evidence regarding the identity of the investor or lender along with their conformations, it has been held that the assessee has discharged the initial burden and, therefore, the burden shifts on the Assessing Officer to examine the source of the credit so as to be justified in referring to section 68 of the I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 22 of 25 Act. After the Assessing Officer puts the assessee on notice and the assessee submits the explanation with regard to the cash credit, the Assessing Officer should consider the same objectively before he takes a decision to accept or reject it. In Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC), it was held that if the explanation given by the assessee shows that the receipt is not of income nature, the department cannot convert good proof into no proof or otherwise unreasonably reject it. On the other hand, if the explanation is unconvincing, the same can be rejected and an inference shows that the amount represents undisclosed income either from a disclosed or an undisclosed source CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 161 Taxman 169/291 ITR 278/210 CTR 20 (SC). The explanation given by the assessee cannot be rejected arbitrarily or capriciously, without sufficient ground on suspicion or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds Lal Mohan Krishna Lal Paul v. CIT [1944] 12 ITR 441 (Cal.) and Anil Kumar Singh v. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 307 (Cal.). 5. Further to be noted that where the assessee furnishes full details regarding the creditors, it is up to the department to pursue the matter further to locate those creditors and examine their creditworthiness. It has been further held in A.S. Sivan Pillai v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 328 (Mad.) that while drawing the inference, it cannot be assumed in the absence of any material that there has been some illegalities in the assessee's transaction. Thus, more importantly, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), the onus of proving that the appellant was not the real was on the party who claims it to be so. Bearing the above legal principles in mind, if we examine the case on hand, it is clear that the assessing officer issued show cause notice only in respect of one of the lender M/s. Fast Glow Distributors. The assessee responded to the show cause notice and submitted the reply dated 22-12-2017.The documents annexed to the reply were classified under 3 categories namely: to establish the identity of the lender, to prove the genuineness of the transactions and to establish the creditworthiness of the lender. The assessing officer has brushed aside these documents and in a very casual manner has stated that mere filing PAN details, balance sheet does not absolve the assessee from his responsibility of proving the nature of transaction. There is no discussion by the assessing officer on the correctness of the stand taken by the assessee. Thus, going by the records placed by the assessee, it could be safely held that the assessee has discharged his initial burden and the burden shifts on the assessing officer to enquire further into the matter which he failed to do. In more than one I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 23 of 25 place the assessing officer used the expression "money laundering." We find such usage to be uncalled for as the allegations of money laundering is a very serious allegations and the effect of a case of money laundering under the relevant Act is markedly different. Therefore, the assessing officer should have desisted from using such expression when it was never the case that there was any allegations of money laundering. Paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of the assessment order are all personal perception and opinion of the assessing officer which needs to be ignored. Much reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Ashish Kumar Agarwal, which statement has been extracted in full in the assessment order and it cannot be disputed that there is no allegation against the assessee company in the said statement. There is no evidence brought on record by the assessing officer to connect the said entry operator with the loan transaction done by the assessee. Therefore, the statement is of little avail and could not have been the basis for making allegations. The assessing officer ignored the settled legal principle and in spite of the assessee having offered the explanation with regard to the loan transaction, no finding has been recorded as regards the satisfaction on the explanation offered by the assessee. Therefore, the assessing officer ignored the basic tenets of law before invoking his power under section 68 of the Act. Fortunately, for the assessee, CIT(A) has done an elaborate factual exercise, took into consideration, the creditworthiness of the 13 companies the details of which were furnished by the assessee. More importantly, the CIT noted that all these companies responded to the notices issued under section 133 (6) of the Act which fact has not been denied by the assessing officer. On going through the records and the net worth of the lender companies, the CIT has recorded the factual findings that the net worth of those companies is in crores of rupees and they have declared income to the tune of Rs. 45,00,000/- and 75,00,000/-. Therefore, the assessing officer if in his opinion found the explanation offered by the assessee to be not satisfactory, he should have recorded so with reasons. We find that there is no discussion on the explanation offered by the assessee qua, one of the lenders. Admittedly, the assessee was not issued any show cause notice in respect of other lenders. However, they are able to produce the details before the CIT(A) who had in our view rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case. As pointed out earlier, the assessing officer brushed aside the explanation offered by the assessee by stating that merely filing PAN details, balance sheet does not absolve the assessee from his responsibilities of proving the nature of transactions. It is not enough for the assessing officer to say so but he should record reasons in writing as to why the documents I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 24 of 25 which were filed by the assessee along with the reply dated 22-12- 2017 does not go to establish the identity of the lender or prove the genuineness of the transaction or establish the creditworthiness of the lender. In the absence of any such finding, we have to hold that the order passed by the assessing officer was utterly perverse and rightly interfered by the CIT(A). The Tribunal re-appreciated the factual position and agreed with the CIT(A). The tribunal apart from taking into consideration, the legal effect of the statement of Ashish Kumar Agarwal also took note of the fact that the notices which were issued by the assessing officer under section 133(6) of the Act to the lenders where duly acknowledged and all the lenders confirmed the loan transactions by filing the documents which were placed before the tribunal in the form of a paper book. These materials were available on the file of the assessing officer and there is no discussion on this aspect. Thus, we find that the tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. 6. For all the above reasons, we find that no question of law much less, substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 7. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.” 18. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case and after examining the same in light of the ratio laid down in the judgements and decisions referred herein above, are inclined to hold that since the assessee has sufficiently discharged its primary onus casted upon it under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act by way of filing all the necessary documents sufficient to explain the nature and source of the alleged share application money and also sufficient enough to prove the identity of the share applicants, genuineness of the transaction and also creditworthiness of the share applicants and also observing that a thorough independent enquiry has been conducted by ld. AO by way of issuing notices u/s 133(6) & 131 of the Act and except for not appearing personally before ld. AO all the other information as called for by ld. AO has been supplied and also considering the fact I.T.A. No.: 551/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd. Page 25 of 25 that most of the alleged share applicants have passed through the scrutiny proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act and are also active companies appearing on the Portal of Ministry of Corporate Affairs filing all relevant documents year-wise and therefore, in view of the decisions referred herein above, set aside the finding of ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 19. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Kolkata, the 25 th May, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- [Rajpal Yadav] [Manish Borad] Vice President Accountant Member Dated: 25.05.2023 Bidhan (P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. M/s. Bhikshu Agency Pvt. Ltd., 9/6, Kaibartapara Lane, 1 st Floor, Flat No. 101, Salkia, Howrah 711 106. 2. ITO, Ward-5(3) Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-6, Kolkata. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata