DCIT -1(3)(1), MUMBAI V. M/S.RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 6251/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3628 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR P DANIEL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Share purchase agreement; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Valuation report; Capital receipt
• Section: 68; 15; 14A; 260A; 133(6); 205

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH , AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , JM ITA NO. 6251 / MUM/20 1 7 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 ) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(3)(2) ROOM NO.540, 5 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAWAN M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 VS. M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., B - 2 001, 20 TH FLOOR RNA ROYAL PARK CHS LTD., M.G. ROAD, OFF LINK ROAD, KANDIVALI (W) MUMBAI 400 067 PAN/GIR NO. AABCR3887N ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY SMT. RIDDHI MISHRA A SSESSEE BY DR. P. DANIEL DATE OF HEARING 22 / 01 /201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20 / 02 /201 9 / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M) : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) - 3 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LD CITA] DATED 24/04/2015 FOR A.Y.2012 - 13 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S.68 OF THE ACT IN THE ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2017 M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., 2 SUM OF RS.2,27,50,000/ - TOWARDS SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LABEL ART WORK AND DESIGNING AND LETTING OF OUTDOOR HOARDINGS. FOR THE A.Y.2012 - 13, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 18/12/2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.NIL UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND BOOK PROFIT OF RS.43,700/ - U/S.115JB OF THE ACT. D URING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION , THE ASSESSEE ISSUED 2,27,500 SHARES AT A FACE VALUE OF RS.10/ - AT PREMIUM OF RS.90 PER SHARE AND ACCORDINGLY, RECEIVED SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.22,75,000/ - AND SHARE PREMIUM OF RS.2,04,75,000/ - . THE TOTAL SUM RECEIVED FROM T HE FOLLOWING 11 SHARE APPLICANTS WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,27,50,000: - SR. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT INVOLVED (IN RS.) 1. M/S. KIRTI GOODS PVT LTD., 10,00,000/ - 2. M/S. KANYU COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., 18,50,000/ - 3. M/S. ANUPRIYA VINIMAY PVT.LTD., 30,00,0 00/ - 4. M/S. VKJ TRESIM PVT. LTD., 16,00,000/ - 5. M/S. NILIMA GOODS PVT. LTD., 10,00,000/ - 6. M/S. MUKTANAND COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., 10,00,000/ - 7. M/S. MAHAVIR RETAIL PVT. LTD., 2,00,000/ - 8. M/S. ADITI TRADE FINANCE PVT. LTD., 12,00,000/ - 9. M/S. SWA DIST SWEETS PVT. LTD., 9,00,000/ - 10 M/S. SITARA FINCOM PVT. LTD., 45,00,000/ - 11. M/S. PADMAVATI CREDIT CAPITAL PVT. LTD., 65,00,000/ - 3.1. THE LD. AO SOUGHT TO EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE AFORESAID SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM AND ACCORDINGLY ISSUED NOTICES ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2017 M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., 3 U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT TO ALL THE 11 SHARE APPLICANTS. OUT OF THIS, SIX PARTIES RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT BY FILING THE REQUISITE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE LD. AO ; T WO PARTI ES ON WHOM NOTICES U/S.133(6) WERE SE RVED FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICE BY FILING REQUISITE DETAILS AND FOR REMAINING THREE PARTIES, NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT GOT RETURNED UNSERVED. 3.2. THE LD. AO WITH REGARD TO FIVE PARTIES FROM WHOM NO REPLIES WERE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.1 33(6) OF THE ACT, WHICH INCLUDES THREE PARTIES O N WHOM NOTICES COULD NOT BE SERVED, PROCEED ED TO TREAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE RESPECTIVE SHARE APPLICANTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.8 4 ,50,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDIT THEREOF. WITH REGARD TO THE REMAINING SIX PARTIES FROM WHOM REPLIES WERE DULY RECEIVE D BY THE LD. AO IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT TOTALLING TO RS.1,43,00,000/ - , THE LD. AO MADE OBSERVATIONS B Y HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT SUBSTANTIAL WORTH TO RECEIVE SUCH HUGE SHARE PREMIUM AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO JUSTIFY THE RECEIPT OF SHARE PREMIUM BASED ON AN INDEPENDENT SHARE VALUATION REPORT. 3.3. THE LD. AO ALSO OBSE RVED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS ARE NOT RELATED PARTIES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE OBSERVED THAT THE CREDITS APPEARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TOWARDS SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM ARE REVENUE IN NATURE IN TERMS OF SECTION 78(2) OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2017 M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., 4 AND ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED TO TREAT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED FROM SIX PARTIES TOTALLING TO RS.1,43,00,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. IN TOTAL THE LD. AO ADDED A SUM OF RS.2,27,50,000/ - [RS.84,50,000 + 1,45,00,000] A S UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT. 3.4. THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS PROVIDED IN THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 OR IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 RELEVANT TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , FOR DETERMINING THE PREMIUM ON SHARES ISSUED AND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DERIVED THE PREMIUM AMOUNT AFTER CONSIDERING T HE FACTORS LIKE FUTURE PROSPECT S AND PROFITABILITY FROM DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ACQUIRING FROM M/S. N IGO S PROPERTIES LIMITED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO HAD NOT DOUBTED THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM FROM FIVE PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS.84,50,000/ - , FROM WHICH THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDIT THEREOF STANDS DULY PROVED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 3.5. THE A SSESSEE ADMITTEDLY SUBMITTED COPIES OF SHARE APPLICATION, BANK STATEMENTS OF SHARE APPLICANTS , BALANCE SHEETS, PAN, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, RETURN OF ALLOTMENT FILED WITH REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND BANK STATEMENTS OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO HAD NOT DRAWN ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE ON THE DETAILS SUBMITTED IN THE FORM OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND MERELY PROCEEDED TO TREAT THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT ON THE GROUND THAT NOTICE U/S.1 33(6) ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2017 M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., 5 OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THREE APPLICANTS AND NO REPLIES WERE RECEIVED FROM TWO APPLICANTS ON WHOM U/S.133(6) WAS SERVED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED FROM THE AFORE SAID DETAILS THAT IT COULD BE EASILY INFERRED THAT ALL THE FIVE SHARE APPLICANTS A RE REGULARLY ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND HENCE THEIR IDENTITY IS DULY PROVED. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE ROUTED THROUGH REGULAR BANK ING CHANNELS AND THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE ALSO PROVED. ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD ADVANCED MONIES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OUT OF THEIR AVAILABLE BANK FUNDS WHICH GO TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THREE INGREDIENTS OF THE SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WERE DULY PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.6. THE ASSESSEE WITH REG ARD TO THE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED FROM REMAINING SIX APPLICANTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,43,00,000/ - SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE SIX PARTIES HAD DULY RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT. THE SAME WERE IGNORED BY THE LD. AO BY OBSER VING THAT THE PARTY HAS NO FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES DURING THE YEAR AND HENCE, THIS PROVE D THE WORTH AND STATURE OF THOSE SHARE APPLICANTS. THE CONCERNED PARTIES BANK STATEMENT REFLECTED CONSTANT MOVEMENT OF FUNDS OF CREDITS AND DEBITS CITED IN ROUND FIGURES FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AND HENCE THOSE PARTIES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE GENUINELY INVOLVED INTO ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. ALL THOSE PARTIES BALANCE SHEET REFLECTED RESERVES AND SURPLUS COMPRISING OF SECURITIES PREMIUM ONLY AND DO NOT HAVE REGULAR SURPLUS IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT GENERATED OVER THE YEARS AND ACCORDINGLY, THEIR CREDIBILITY ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2017 M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., 6 WAS AT QUESTION. ALL THOSE PARTIES DID NOT HAVE MAJOR FIXED ASSETS LIKE LAND, BUILDING , FACTORY , PREMISES ON WHICH CERTAIN BUSINESS ACTIVITY COULD BE CARRIED OUT. 3.7. THE ASSESSE E , ON THE OTHER HAND , SUBMITTED THAT FINANCIAL RESERVES OF A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR IS NOT INDICATIVE OF WORTH AND STATU R E OF A COMPANY. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT TH E SIX SHARE APPLICANTS HAVE SHOWN RESERVES AND SURPLUS IN BALANCE SHEET AS UNDER: - 1. M/S. M UKTANAND COMMERCIAL P LTD. RS.16.29 CRORE 2. M/S. MAHAVIR RETAIL P LTD. RS. 1.52 CRORE 3. M/S. ADITI TRADE FINANCE P. LTD. RS.17.30 CRORE 4. M/S. SWADISHT SWEETS P. LTD. RS.38.65 CRORE 5. M/S. SITARA FINCOM P. LTD. RS.46.70 CRORE 6. M/S. PADMAWATI CREDIT CAPITAL P. LTD. RS.43.16 CRORE 3.8. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO GENERATE RESERVES AND SURPLUS ONLY WITH REVENUE SURPLUS EARNED FROM THE OPERATIONS. EVEN THE SECURITIES PREMIUM RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF SHARES WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO GENERATION OF RESERVES AND SURPLUS AND THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE GOVERNED AND SUBJECT TO UTILISATION IN A RESTRICTED MANNER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 78 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PARTIES DOES NOT EMANATE BASED ON THE OUTCOME OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND, BUILDING, FACTORY OR PREMISES. THERE COULD BE SO MANY BUSINESSES WHICH COULD BE RUN WITHOUT OWNING LAND, BUILDING OR ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2017 M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., 7 FACTORY. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY , SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THAT REGARD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOPHIA FINANCE LTD., REPORTED IN 205 ITR 98. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY PLEADED THAT THE RECEIPT OF SHARE PREMIUM IS O NLY A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 78 OF THE COMPANIES ACT ONLY SUGGESTS HOW SUCH SHARE PREMIUM COULD BE UTILISED / ADJUSTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. AO OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 78(2) OF THE COMPANIES ACT ERRONEOUSLY FO R JUSTIFYING THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT IS TOTALLY UNWARRANTED. THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO VIOLATION OF SHARES FOR JUSTIFICATION OF THE SHARE PREMIUM SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION EITHER IN THE COMPANIES ACT OR IN THE INCOME TAX AC T MANDATING THE SAME WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED , THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DERIVED SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNT AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS LIKE FUTURE PROSPECTS AND THE PROFITABILITY FROM DEVEL OPMENT RIGHTS ACQUIRED FROM M/S. N IGO S PROPERTIES LTD. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT THE PROVISO INCORPORATED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2012 W.E.F. 01/04/2013 IN SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS TO BE CONSTRUED ONLY PROSPEC TIVELY FROM A.Y.2013 - 14 ONWARDS AND NOT APPLICABLE FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GAGANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., IN ITA NO.1613/MUM/2014 DATED 20/03/2017. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2017 M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., 8 ENTIRE DOCUMEN TS RELATING TO THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND SHARE PREMIUM WERE DULY FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. AO TOGETHER WITH THE CORRESPONDING INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS OF THE RELEVANT SHARE APPLICANTS. ACCORDINGLY, HE PLEADED THAT THE THREE NECESSARY INGREDIE NTS OF SECTION 68 VIZ., IDENTITY OF THE SHARE HOLDER, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE HOLDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S WERE DULY FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE HEREIN. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS. 3.9. THE LD. CIT(A) APPRECIATED THE VARIOUS AFORESAID CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE IN THE SUM OF R S.2,27,50,000/ - U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE FACTS STATED HEREINABOVE REMAIN UNDISPUTED AND HENCE THE SAME ARE NOT REITERATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 5.1. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BEFORE US THAT EVEN PRIOR TO THE INSERTION OF PROVISO TO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY SATISFACTORILY THE THREE NECESSARY INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 VIZ. THE IDENTITY OF SHAREHOLDER, CREDITWORTHIN ESS OF SHARE HOLDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. LD. DR THEREAFTER , RELIED ON THE VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. AO BY REITERATING THE SAME BEFORE US. ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2017 M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., 9 LD. DR ALSO FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION EXPLAINING THE BASIC POSITION OF LAW IN THE CONTEXT OF PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDIT APPEARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE PROVED SATISFACTORILY BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AO ALSO FURTHER BROUGHT OUT THE IMPLICATION OF NEWLY INTRODUCED PROVISO TO SE CTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RECENT DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS NDR PROMOT E RS PVT LTD. IN ITA NO.49/2018 DATED 17/01/2019 WHEREIN THE DECISION WAS RENDERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 5.2. WE A RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR THAT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDIT APPEARED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TO BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE, TO THAT EXTENT THE ONUS IS INDEED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE , THE ASSESSEE B Y FURNISHING THE NAME, ADDRESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, PAN, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, COPIES OF SHARE APPLICATIONS, BALANCE SHEETS, RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BANK STATEMENTS HAD DULY EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF CREDIT RECEIVED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AS SHARE CAPITA L AND SHARE PREMIUM AND FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE SHAREHOLDERS, IT COULD BE SEE N THAT THOSE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE SUFFICIENT BANK BALANCE ON THEIR OWN TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE SOURCE OF CREDIT IS ALSO PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE. HENCE, IT COULD BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DULY COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE TOGETHER WITH THE THREE ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2017 M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., 10 NECESSARY INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. W ITH REGARD TO THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR ON HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT SUPRA, WE FIND IN THAT CASE , ONE MR. TARUN GOYAL WAS STATED TO BE OPERATING ALL THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES WHO HAD INVESTED MONIES IN THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY I.E., NDR PROMOT E RS PVT. LTD., AND ALL THOSE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE HANDLED BY MR.TARUN GOYAL AND THAT A STATEMENT OF MR. TARUN GOYAL WAS ALSO RECORDED WHEREIN IT EMERGED THAT THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES NEVER USED TO MEET AND THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF MR. TARUN GOYAL. SINCE THE LD. AO IN THAT CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAD MADE EXHAUSTIVE ENQUIRIES AND BROUGHT OUT THE FACTS FROM ALL ANGLES O N RECORD , THE HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT DECIDED THAT MERE FILING OF REQUISITE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. AO WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT OUT OF 11 SHARE APPLICANTS, SIX SHARE APPLICANTS HAD DULY RESPONDED TO THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT TOTALLING TO RS.1,43,00,000/ - . THE LD. AO DID NOT PROCEED TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRIES WITH REGARD TO THESE SI X SHARE APPLICANTS. HE MERELY DISBELIEVE D THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM WITH REGARD TO THESE SIX SHARE APPLICANTS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. WITH REGARD TO THE REMAINING FIVE SHARE APPLICANTS TOTALLING TO RS.84,50,000/ - , NO REPLIES WERE RE CEIVED U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT, BUT THE DETAILS ABOUT THE ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2017 M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., 11 SHAREHOLDERS IN THE FORM OF NAME, ADDRESS OF THE SHARE HOLDERS , ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, COPIES OF SHARE APPLICATION FORM, RETURN OF ALLOTMENT FILED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF THE COMPANIES, THEIR CONFIRMATIO NS, BALANCE SHEETS AND THEIR BANK STATEMENTS WERE INDEED FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. AO. NO DEFICIENCIES WERE FOUND IN THE SAID DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE THEREON. ADMITTEDLY ALL THE 11 SHARE APPLICANTS HAD SUFFICIENT NET WORTH IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES AND SURPLUS TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN THE SHARE COMPANY WHICH DULY PROVE D THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE ROUTED THROUGH REGULAR BANKING CHANNELS WHICH PR OVE THE G ENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ALSO. ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS ARE DULY ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX WHICH IS QUITE EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FILED BEFORE THE LD. AO THEREBY PROVING THEIR IDENTITY. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GAGANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., IN ITA NO.1613/MUM/2014 DATED 20/03/2017 HAD HELD AS UNDER: - 1. THIS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) CHALLENGES THE ORDER DATED 23RD APRIL, 2014 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (THE TRIBUNAL). THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 2. MR. SURESH KUMAR, THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE URGES THE FOLLOWING REFRAMED QUESTIONS OF LAW FOR OUR CONSIDERATION : - I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,53,50,000/ - UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BEING SHARE CAPITAL/SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2017 M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., 12 CASH CREDIT? (II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT ONLY TO THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH RESTRICTION UNDER SECTION 14A AND/OR RULE 8D? 3. REGARDING QUESTION NO.(I): A) DURING THE PREVIOUS RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE HAD INCREASED ITS SHARE CAPITAL FROM RS.2,50,000/ - TO RS.83.75 LAKHS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD COLLECTED SHARE PREMIUM TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6.69 CRORES. CONSEQUENTLY HE CALLED UPON THE RESPONDENT TO JUSTIFY THE CHARGING OF SHARE PREMIUM AT RS .190/PER SHARE. THE RESPONDENT FURNISHED THE LIST OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS, COPY OF THE SHARE APPLICATION FORM, COPY OF SHARE CERTIFICATE AND FORM NO.2 FILED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR CHARGING SHARE PREMIUM WAS ON THE BASIS OF THE F UTURE PROSPECTS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION/JUSTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENT AND INVOKED SECTION 68 OF THE ACT TO TREAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.7.53 CRORES I.E. THE AGGREGATE OF THE ISSUE PRICE AND THE PREMIUM ON THE SHARES ISSUED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. (B) BEING AGGRIEVED, THE RESPONDENT CARRIED THE ISSUE IN APPEAL. BY AN ORDER DATED 24TH MAY, 2011 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (CIT(A) ) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.7.53 CRORES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN NO REASON TO CONCLUDE THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE (INCLUSIVE OF PREMIUM) WAS NOT GENUINE. THIS INSPITE OF EVIDENCE BEING FURNISHED BY THE RE SPONDENT IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER HE HELD THAT THE APPROPRIATE VALUATION OF THE SHARES IS FOR THE SUBSCRIBER/INVESTOR TO DECIDE AND NOT A SUBJECT OF ENQUIRY BY THE REVENUE. FINALLY HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE APEX C OURT IN CIT V/S. LOVELY EXPORTS (P)LTD. 317 ITR 218 TO HOLD THAT IF THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN SUBSCRIBED BY BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS IT IS FOR THE REVENUE TO PROCEED AGAINST SUCH SHAREHOLDERS. THEREFORE IT HELD THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE A MOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL SUBSCRIPTION INCLUDING THE SHARE PREMIUM AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. (C) BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE CARRIED THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDS THAT THE RESPONDE NT - ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CAPACITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAD SUBSCRIBED TO ITS SHARES. THE IDENTITY WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE VERY FACT THAT THE DETAILED NAMES, ADDRESSES OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, PAN NUMBERS, BANK DETAILS AND CON FIRMATORY LETTERS WERE FILED. THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS ESTABLISHED BY FILING A COPY ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2017 M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., 13 OF SHARE APPLICATION FORM, THE FORM FILED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND AS ALSO BANK DETAILS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THEIR CONFIRMATIONS WHICH WOULD IND ICATE BOTH THE GENUINENESS AS ALSO THE CAPACITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SHARES. FURTHER THE TRIBUNAL WHILE UPHOLDING THE FINDING OF CIT(A) ALSO THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL ALONGWITH THE PREMIUM RECEIVED THEREON, WOULD BE ON CAPITAL RECEIPT AND NOT IN THE REVENUE FIELD. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED UPON THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) TO UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISSING THE REVENUE'S APPEAL. (D) MR. SURESH KUMAR, THE LEA RNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE CONTENDS THAT PROVISO TO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS INTRODUCED WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2013 WOULD APPLY IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE EVEN FOR A.Y. 200809. THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSION IS THAT THE DE HORS THE PROVISO ALSO THE REQUIREMENTS AS SET OUT THEREIN WOULD HAVE TO BE SATISFIED. (E) WE FIND THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2012 WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2013. THUS IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE ONLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 ONWARDS AND NOT FOR THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN FACT, BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT WAS NOT EVEN THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AS IN FORCE DURING THE SUBJECT YEARS HAS TO BE READ/UNDERSTOOD AS THOUGH THE PROVI SO ADDED SUBSEQUENTLY EFFECTIVE ONLY FROM 1ST APRIL, 2013 WAS ITS NORMAL MEANING. THE PARLIAMENT DID NOT INTRODUCE TO PROVISO TO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT NOR DOES THE PROVISO SO INTRODUCED STATES THAT IT WAS INTRODUCED FOR REMOVAL O F DOUBTS OR THAT IT IS DECLARATORY. THEREFORE IT IS NOT OPEN TO GIVE IT RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, BY PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS THAT THE ADDITION OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS IMMATERIAL AND DOES NOT CHANGE THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE ADDING OF THE PROVISO. IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER THE THREE ESSENTIAL TESTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE PRE - PROVISO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT LAID DOWN BY THE COURTS NAMELY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, IDENTITY AND THE CAPACITY OF THE INVESTOR HAVE ALL BEEN EXAMINED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ON FACTS IT WAS FOUND SATISFIED. FURTHER IT WAS A SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT SUCH LARGE AMOUNT OF SHARE PREMIUM GIVES RISE TO SUSPICION ON THE GENUINENESS (IDENTITY ) OF THE SHAREHOLDERS I.E. THEY ARE BOGUS. THE APEX COURT IN LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) IN THE CONTEXT TO THE PRE - AMENDED SECTION 68 OF THE ACT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE REVENUE URGES THAT THE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM BOG US SHAREHOLDERS THEN IT IS FOR THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO PROCEED BY REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT OF SUCH SHAREHOLDERS AND ASSESSING THEM TO TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT DOES NOT ENTITLE THE REVENUE TO ADD THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2017 M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., 14 (F) IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES AND PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE CONCURRENT FINDING OF FACT ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL, THE PROPOSED QUESTION OF LAW DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. THUS NOT ENTERTAINED. 4. (A) ADMIT THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AT (II) ABOVE. (B) THE ISSUE ARISING IN QUESTION NO. (II) IS ESSENTIALLY WHETHER APPLICATION OF RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT RULES WOULD PERMIT THE REVENUE TO DISALLOW EXPENDITURE NOT CLAIMED I.E. MUCH LARGER THAN THE EXPENDITURE / DEBITED IN EARNING ITS TOTAL INCOME. THE COUNSEL INFORM US THAT THERE IS NO DECISION ON THIS ISSUE OF ANY COURT AVAILABLE AND IT WOULD AFFECT A LARGE NUMBER OF CASES WHERE SIMILAR ISSUES ARISE. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE WOULD REQUIRE AN EARLY DETERMINATION. IN THE ABOVE VIEW, AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL, THE APPEAL IS KEPT FOR HEARING ON 17TH APRIL, 2017 AT 3.00 P.M., SUBJECT TO OVERNIGHT PART - HEARD. 5. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO COMMUNICATE A COPY OF THIS ORDER TO THE TRIBUNAL. THIS WOU LD ENABLE THE TRIBUNAL TO KEEP THE PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE PRESENT APPEAL AVAILABLE, TO BE PRODUCED WHEN SOUGHT FOR BY THE COURT. 5.3. IN THE AFORESAID ORDER, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD ALSO CATEGORICALLY SAID THAT THE PROVIS O TO SECTION 68 BROUGHT IN BY THE FINANCE ACT 2012 IN THE STATUTE IS APPLICABLE ONLY FROM A.Y.2013 - 14 ONWARDS AND NOT EARLIER. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) APART FROM ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE O N FACTS HAD ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION S OF HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS UNDER: - 6.24. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOA SPONGE AND POWER LTD (TAX APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2012), HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECIDED THAT: 'ONCE THE AUTHORITIES HAVE GOT ALL THE DETAILS, INCLUDING THE NAME AND ADDRESSES OF THE SHAREHOLDE RS, THEIR PAN/GIR NUMBER, SO ALSO THE NAME OF THE BANK FROM WHICH THE ALLEGED INVESTORS RECEIVED MONEY AS SHARE APPLICATION, THEN, IT CANNOT BE TERMED AS 'BOGUS'. THE CONTROVERSY IS COVERED , BY THE JUDGEMENTS RENDERED B Y THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C - LOVELY EXPORTS PVT LTD, VS. CIT, (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195, AS ALSO BY THIS COURT IN CIT VS. CREATIVE WORLD TELEFILMS LTD, (2011) 333 ITR WO (BOM). IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL'S FINDING THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATIO N IN THE ADDITION MADE UNDER ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2017 M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., 15 SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NEITHER SUFFERS FROM ANY PERVERSITY NOR GIVES RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW.' 6.25. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GREEN INFRA LTD (IT APPEAL NO. 1162 OF 2014) 146 OTR (BOMBAY) 262 (2017) (A. Y. / 2011 - 12 ) ALSO HELD THAT 3. REGARDING QUESTION NO.(II): (A) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE REVENUE RAISED A NEW PLEA VIZ. THAT THE SO CALLED SHARE PREMIUM HAS ALSO TO BE JUDGED ON THE TOUCHSTONE OFS. 68 OF THE AC T WHICH PROVIDES FOR CASH CREDIT BEING CHARGED TO TAX. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE ISSUE TO BE RAISED BEFORE IT FOR THE FIRST TIME OVERRULING THE OBJECTION OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE , (B) THE IMPUGNED ORDER EXAMINED THE APPLICABILITY O F S . 68 OF THE ACT ON THE PARAMETERS OF THE IDENTITY OF THE SUBSCRIBER TO THE SHARE CAPITAL, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE CAPACITY OF THE SUBSCRIBER TO THE SHARE CAPITAL IT FOUND THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE SUBSCRIBERS WAS CONFIRMED BY VIRTUE OF THE AO ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THEM. FURTHER, IT HOLDS THAT THE REVENUE ITSELF MAKES NO GRIEVANCE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE SUBSCRIBERS. SO FAR AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF SHARE SUBSCRIBER IS CONCERNED, IT CONCLUDES AS THE ENT IRE TRANSACTION IS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND REFLECTED M THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE SUBSCRIPTION WAS DONE THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNELS AS EVIDENCED BY BANK STATEMENTS WHICH WERE EXAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL WITH REGARD TO TH E CAPACITY OF THE SUBSCRIBERS THE IMPUGNED ORDER RECORDS A FINDING THAT 98 PER CENT OF THE SHARES IS HELD BY IDFC PRIVATE EQUITY FUND II WHICH IS A FUND MANAGER OF IDFC LTD. MOREOVER, THE CONTRIBUTIONS IN IDFC PRIVATE EQUITY FUND HARE ALL BY PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS. C) MR. CHHOTARAY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE STATES THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER ITSELF HOLDS THAT SHARE PREMIUM OF RS. 490 PER SHARE DEFIES ALL COMMERCIAL PRUDENCE. THEREFORE IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED TO BE CASH CREDIT. WE FIND THAT THE T RIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED THE CASE OF THE REVENUE ON THE PARAMETERS OF S. 68 OF THE ACT AND FOUND ON FACTS THAT IT IS NOT SO HIT. THEREFORE, S. 68 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW IN ANY MANNER THE FACTUAL FINDING RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS PERVERSE IN ANY MANNER. (D) THUS, QUESTION NO. (II) AS FORMULATED DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND THUS NOT ENTERTAINED.' ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2017 M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., 16 5.4. THE LD. AR ALSO STATED THAT ALL THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES ARE STILL ACTIVE EVEN T ODAY AND HAD EVEN FILED THEIR BALANCE SHEETS FOR 31/03/2018. THE LD. AR ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 23 TO 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 22/02/2011 ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. N IGO S PROPERTIES LTD., WHEREIN THE ASSE SSEE HAD INFORMED N IGO S PROPERTIES LTD., (DEVELOPERS) THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY POSSESSE D LEASEHOLD RIGHTS, TITLE, SHARE AND INTERESTS IN THE PIECE AND PARCEL OF LAND ADMEASURING 4795.90 SQ.MTRS WHICH HAD BEEN LEASED BY THE COMPANY BY BRIHAN MUMBAI MAHANA GARPALIKA FOR A PERIOD OF 99 YEARS COMMENCING FROM 15/09/1983 AND THAT THE SAID PROPERTY FALLS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONE. WE FIND THAT PURSUANT TO SAID AGREEMENT DATED 22/02/2011, THE DEVELOPER I.E., M/S. N IGO S PROPERTIES LTD., HAD EXPRESSED THEIR WILLINGNESS T O PURCHASE FROM THE COMPANY , THE RIGHTS TO FURTHER DEVELOP THE PROPERTY FOR ITS BUSINESS PURPOSES. HENCE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD TRIED TO CAPITALIZE ON THE POSSESSION OF LEASEHOLD RIGHTS FOR A PERIOD OF 99 YEARS WHICH COULD BE COMMERCIALLY E XPLOITED BY WAY OF DEVELOPMENT FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES AND ACCORDINGLY , HAD ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH M/S. N IGO S PROPERTIES LTD., AND FOR SUCH COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION THE ASSESSEE HAD FACTORED THAT FUTURE ACT INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUSTIFICATION OF SHARE PREMIUM FROM VARIOUS SHARE APPLICANTS. 5.5. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS AND BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION S RELIED UPON SUPRA, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD T O THE RECEIPT OF ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2017 M/S. RAJESH DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD., 17 SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20 / 02 /201 9 SD/ - ( AMARJ IT SINGH ) SD/ - ( M. BALAGANESH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 20 / 02 /201 9 KARUNA SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. TH E CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//