INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(1)(1), MUMBAI V. M/S.AHAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5904/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6528 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATISCHANDRA RAJORE DR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKUSH AGARWALAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Source of fund
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 68; 69; 148; 10

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI , .., , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5904/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(1)(1), ROOM NO.226, 02 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. M/S AHAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. C-1401, PANCHSEEL HEIGHTS, MAHAVIR NAGAR, 90FT ROAD, KANDIWALI (WEST), MUMBAI-400067 ( # / REVENUE) ( $%& ' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AAFCA7733C # / REVENUE BY SHRI SATISCHANDRA RAJORE DR $%& ' / ASSESSEE BY SHRI VISHNU AGARWAL & SHRI ANKUSH AGARWAL-AR ( #)*' + / DATE OF HEARING : 09/01/2019 *' + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09/01/2019 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (VICE PRESIDENT) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29/06/2017 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI, DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE ITA NO.5904/MUM/2017 M/S AHAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 2 CAPITAL/SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.2,15,00,000/- MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE LD. DR, SHRI SATISHCHANDRA RAJORE, DEFENDED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION IN NAVODAYA CASTLE (P.) LTD. VS CIT (2015) 56 TAXMA NN.COM 18 (SUPREME COURT) AND ANOTHER DECISION FROM THE AHMEADABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PAWANKUMAR M. SANGHVI VS INCOME TAX OFFICER (2017) 81 TAXMANN.COM 308 (AHD.-TRIB.). OUR ATTENTION WAS IN VITED TO PARA-6.10 (PAGE-44) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ON T HE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI VISHNU AGARWAL ALONG WITH SHRI ANKUSH AGARWAL, CONTENDED THAT ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 06/11/2009, WHEREIN, O N DUE ENQUIRY BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED. OUR ATTENTION WAS FURTHER IN VITED TO PAGES 127, 129 AND 131 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS PL EADED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER MERELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON 01/10/ 2013, ITA NO.5904/MUM/2017 M/S AHAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 3 WHICH WAS RETRACTED BY HIM. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT T HE ADDITION OF RS.15 LAKHS WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ST ATEMENT OBTAINED FROM SHRI PAWAN KUMAR JAIN AND THERE IS NO MENTION OF REMAINING ADDITION. IT WAS PLEADED THAT OUT OF THE THREE PARTIES, TWO PARTIES DULY RESPONDED TO TH E NOTICES ISSUED TO THEM AND THE THIRD PARTY ALSO FILED THE A PPLICATION WITH RESPECT TO CHANGE OF ADDRESS ON 27/10/2009. T HE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL ) STRONGLY DEFENDED. SO FAR AS THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR IS CONCERNED, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THESE DE CISIONS ARE ON DIFFERENT FACTS AS THERE WAS NO REPLY TO THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT WHEREAS IN T HE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, DUE REPLY WAS FILED. IT WA S ALSO EXPLAINED THAT EVEN IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN, THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE PRESENT ASSE SSEE AND IT IS A GENERAL STATEMENT. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE AD VERTING FURTHER, IT IS OUR BOUNDED DUTY TO EXAMINE SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, WHICH HIS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- ITA NO.5904/MUM/2017 M/S AHAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 4 68. 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 INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR : PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY (NOT BEING A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIAL LY INTERESTED), AND THE SUM SO CREDITED CONSISTS OF SH ARE APPLICATION MONEY, SHARE CAPITAL, SHARE PREMIUM OR ANY SUCH AMOUNT BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED, ANY EXPLANATIO N 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 ALS O OFFERS AN EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE O F SUCH SUM SO CREDITED; AND (B) SUCH EXPLANATION IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AFORESAID HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY : PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL APPLY IF THE PERSON, IN WHOSE NAME TH E SUM REFERRED TO THEREIN IS RECORDED, IS A VENTURE CAPIT AL FUND OR A VENTURE CAPITAL COMPANY AS REFERRED TO IN CLAU SE (23FB)OF SECTION 10 . 2.2. AS PER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, ONUS IS UPON TH E ASSESSEE TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN SO CAST UPON. FIRS T BURDEN IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLA IN THE CREDIT ENTRY CONTAINED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. TH E BURDEN HAS TO BE DISCHARGED WITH POSITIVE MATERIAL (OCEANIC PRODUCTS EXPORTING COMPANY VS CIT 241 ITR 497 (KERALA.). THE LEGISLATURE HAD LAID DOWN THAT IN TH E ABSENCE ITA NO.5904/MUM/2017 M/S AHAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 5 OF SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, THE UNEXPLAINED CASH C REDIT MAY BE CHARGED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. OUR VIEW IS FORTI FIED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN HONBLE APEX COURT IN P. MOH ANKALA (2007)(291 ITR 278)(SC). A CLOSE READING OF SECTION 68 AND 69 OF THE ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IN THE CASE OF SE CTION 68, THERE SHOULD BE CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF 69 THERE MAY NOT BE AN ENTRY IN SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED, THE ONUS OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF A SUM, FOUND TO BE RECEIVED/TRANSACTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS ON HIM AND WHERE IT IS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED, IT IS OPEN TO TH E REVENUE TO HOLD THAT IT IS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO FU RTHER BURDEN LIES ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT INCOME IS F ROM ANY OTHER PARTICULAR SOURCE. WHERE THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO PROVE SATISFACTORILY THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF SUCH CREDIT, THE REVENUE IS FREE TO MAKE THE ADDITION. THE PRIN CIPLE LAID DOWN IN GANPATI MUDALIAR (1964) 53 ITR 623/A. GOVIN DA RAJULU MUDALIAR (34 ITR 807)(SC) AND ALSO CIT VS DU RGA PRASAD MORE (72 ITR 807)(SC) ARE THE LANDMARK DECIS IONS. THE RATIO LAID DOWN THEREIN ARE THAT IF THE EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE IS UNSATISFACTORY, THE AMOUNT CAN BE T REATED ITA NO.5904/MUM/2017 M/S AHAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 6 AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN DAULAT RAM RAWATMAL 87 ITR 349 (SC) FURTHER SUPPORTS THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF A CASH ENTRY, IT I S NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE NOT ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR BUT ALSO THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE, UNDER THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. A HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 106 OF THE EVIDE NCE ACT AND SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WILL BE THAT A PART FROM ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, THE ASSESSEE MUST ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION A S WELL AS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. IN CIT V S KORLAY TRADING COMPANY LTD. 232 ITR 820 (CAL.), IT WAS HEL D THAT MERE MENTION OF FILE NUMBER OF CREDITOR WILL NOT SU FFICE AND EACH ENTRY HAS TO BE EXPLAINED SEPARATELY BY THE AS SESSEE (CIT VS R.S. RATHAORE) 212 ITR 390 (RAJ.). THE HON BLE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN NEMI CHANDRA KOTHARI VS CIT (264 ITR 254)(GAU) HELD THAT TRANSACTION BY CHEQUES MAY NOT BE ALWAYS SACROSANCT. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE ASSE SSEE DULY FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS ENSHRINED U/S 68 OF T HE ACT AND PRODUCED NECESSARY EVIDENCE FOR ITS CLAIM. ITA NO.5904/MUM/2017 M/S AHAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 7 2.3. THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN ACIT VS RAJEEV TANDON 294 ITR (AT) 219 (DEL.), WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY HON BLE HIGH COURT , IN 294 ITR 488, SUPPORTS THE CASE OF T HE REVENUE. IDENTICAL RATIO WAS LAID DOWN IN CIT VS A NIL KUMAR 392 ITR 552 (DEL.), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT MERE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DONOR AND MOVEMENT OF GIFT TH ROUGH BANKING CHANNEL IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GENU INENESS OF GIFT. IF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS ANALYZED WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME OF RS.13 ,190/- IN ITS RETURN FILED ON 31/10/2007 AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE A CT ON 06/11/2009 ACCEPTING THE RETURN INCOME, SUBSEQUENTL Y, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 14/03/2014 WAS ISSUE D TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SHARE CAPITAL/PREMIUM RECEIVED FROM TWO PARTIES NAMELY M/S ALKA DIAMOND INDUSTRIES LTD. (RS.10 LAKHS) AND M/S JAVDA INDIA I MPEX LTD. (RS.5 LAKHS). IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES UNDE R SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 2 0/08/2014 AFFIRMING THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE MAY BE TREATED TO BE FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION ITA NO.5904/MUM/2017 M/S AHAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 8 148 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, NOTICES WERE ISSUED UND ER SECTION 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE ISSU ED 8,60,000 EQUITY SHARES OF TEN EACH FULLY PAID UP AT PREMIUM OF RS.15 PER SHARE TO EIGHTEEN PARTIES. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ENQUIRIES WITH THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT AND CALLED INFORMATION FROM THREE PARTIES. OUT OF THIS THREE P ARTIES, TWO PARTIES, VIDE LETTER DATED 24/03/2015, FURNISHE D THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION AND ONE PARTY M/S A LKA SECURITIES PVT. LTD. FILED APPLICATION WITH RESPECT TO CHANGE OF ADDRESS. IT IS NOTED THAT DURING ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT NECESSARY DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BY THE A SSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO RECEIPT OF SHARE CAPITAL FROM EIGHT EEN PARTIES. EVEN IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAM ED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT (PAGES 1 & 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK), THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS OBSERVED/MENTIONED AS UNDER:- .SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 26/09/2008 AND DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. LATER ON, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ITA NO.5904/MUM/2017 M/S AHAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 9 I.T. ACT, 1961 AND SUBSEQUENT REMINDERS ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE CALLING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS WAS ISSUE D. 2. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE NOTICES, SHRI DINESH KUMAR PACHAURI, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, ASSESSEES AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND FILED DETAILS AND EXPLANATION OF RECOR DS. THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED AND HEARD. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF BORROWING MONEY AND LENDING MONEY ON INTEREST AND SELLING, BUYING SHARES/DEBENTURES, PROPERTIES. 2.4. EVEN THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE IN HAND OBSERVED/HELD AS UNDER:- IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL POSITION EMANATING FROM LEGAL PRECEDENTS AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF HON'BLE DELHI HI GH COURT, IN THE CASE OF GANGESHWARI METAL P. LTD. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IT IS NOTED THAT WHEN REQUISITE DOCUMENTS SUCH PAN, BANK ACCOUNTS, BALANCE SHEET ETC. WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TO ESTABLISH THAT NO CASH TRANSACTIONS WERE INVOLVED I N THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE INVESTING COMPANY THEN WITHOUT FURTHER PROBE TO PROVE CONTRARY THE ADDITIO N UNDER SECTION 68 IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE MADE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS CAST UPON IT BY OFFERIN G COMPLETE EXPLANATION OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES; WHICH A RE THE ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED U NDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS ALSO CONDUCTED INDEPENDENT INQUIRY BY ISSUING NOTIC ES UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE SHARE APPLICATIONS AND THEY HAVE DULY COMPLIED TO THE SAM E BY SUBMITTING ALL THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. HENCE, WH EN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF ITA NO.5904/MUM/2017 M/S AHAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 10 THE SAID INVESTING COMPANIES AND NO ADDITION HAVING BEEN MADE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HANDS; ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, DISCUSSI ON ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING REGARD TO THE DECISION OF COURT S AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AS NOTED ABOVE, THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SHARE APPLICAT ION MONEY OF RS.2,15,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN APPEAL AND IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 2.5. IN THE AFORESAID ORDER, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS MENTIONED ABOUT A DECISION FROM HON'B LE DELHI HIGH COURT AND FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE REQU ISITE DOCUMENTS SUCH AS PAN, BANK ACCOUNTS, BALANCE SHEET , ETC. WERE MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER. EVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE IS NO ALLEGATIO N OF CASH TRANSACTION BY THE INVESTING COMPANY AND THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS CAST UPON IT BY OFFERING COMPLETE EXPLANATION OF THE TRANSACTION OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND PROVED THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF INVESTING COMPA NIES, WHICH ARE THE ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS PROVIDED UNDER S ECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE LD. ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY BY ISSUING NOTICES UNDER S ECTION ITA NO.5904/MUM/2017 M/S AHAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 11 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE SHARE APPLICANT AND THEY H AVE COMPLIED WITH THE SAME BY SUBMITTING NECESSARY DETA ILS, MEANING THEREBY, THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THE SO URCE OF FUNDS. THUS, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSIO N DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL ) AND FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. SO FAR AS, THE CASES RELIED UPON BY LD. DR IS CONCERNED, THE ONE CASE RELIED UP ON IS FROM AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PAVAN KUMAR M. SANGHAVI (2017) 81 TAXMANN.COM 308 (AHD. TRIB.), WHEREIN, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED UNSECURED LOANS BUT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE LENDERS FOR VERIFICATION AND FURTHE R THESE LENDERS WERE FOUND TO BE SHELL COMPANIES, THUS, THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT SAID TO BE GENUINE, CONSEQUE NTLY, THIS JUDICIAL DECISION MAY NOT HELP THE REVENUE BEI NG ON DIFFERENT FACTS. THE ANOTHER DECISION RELIED UPON B Y LD. DR, IS NAVODAYA CASTLE (P.) LTD. VS CIT (2015) 56 TAXMA NN.COM 18 (SUPREME COURT), IN THAT CASE, THE SLP WAS DISMI SSED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND PAN ETC ARE NOT SU FFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBSCRIBE R COMPANY WHEN THERE WAS A MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE SUBSCRIB ER WAS ITA NO.5904/MUM/2017 M/S AHAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 12 A PAPER COMPANY AND NOT A GENUINE INVESTOR. HOWEVER , IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WERE DU LY FILED BY THE INVESTORS AND RESPONDED TO THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. THUS, THIS DECISIO N ALSO MAY NOT HELP OF THE REVENUE BEING ON DIFFERENT FACT S. AS MENTIONED EARLIER THE ADDITION OF RS.15 LAKHS WAS M ERELY MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT MADE BY THE ONE PERS ON WHICH WAS LATER ON RETRACTED BY HIM WITH THE HELP O F SWORN AFFIDAVIT. THE COPY OF THE SHARE APPLICATION FORM, COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF SHARE HOLDERS, COPY OF BANK STATEME NT, COPY OF PAN CARD AND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPANY W ITH RESPECT TO M/S ALKA SECURITIES LTD. ARE AVAILABLE A T PAGES 131 TO 200 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IDENTICAL DOCUMENTS A RE AVAILABLE FROM PAGES 201 TO 232 WITH RESPECT TO M/S ALPHA GRAPHICS INDIA LTD. IDENTICALLY, IN THE CASE OF M/S ALKA BROKING LTD., THE DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES- 233 TO 259 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SIMILARLY, IDENTICAL DOCUMEN TS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO REMAINING INVESTING COMPANIES/ENTITIES. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT NEW DOCUMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE MATERIAL FACTS AVA ILABLE ON ITA NO.5904/MUM/2017 M/S AHAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 13 RECORD CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 68 HAS BEEN DULY FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS F URTHER NOTED THAT EVEN THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY O N EXAMINATION OF MATERIAL FACTS REACHED TO A PARTICUL AR CONCLUSION, THUS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCL USION DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL ), RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 09/01/2019. SD/- (N.K. PRADHAN) SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $%& / VICE PRESIDENT ( ) MUMBAI; 0 DATED : 09/01/2019 F{X~{T? P.S/. $. . , !'()*+,+-) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 123 / THE APPELLANT 2. 423 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( 6' , ( 1 ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. ( 6' / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 8#9$'$ , 1+1. , ( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. :%; / GUARD FILE. ! / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ( / ITAT, MUMBAI