ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. KAD Housing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 6288/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8384 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAINA SOIN KAPIL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Bogus Share capital; Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Question of law; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 147; 131; 68; 148; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI BEFORE S H. N. K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS . SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6288 /DEL/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 7 - 0 8 ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 06, ROOM NO.364, ARA CENTRE, JHADEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI VS KAD HOUSING PVT. LTD. 151, SAVITA VIHAR DELHI PAN AACCK4705B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SMT. NAINA SOIN KAPIL, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SH. RAJESH JAIN, FCA CROSS OBJECTION NO.180/DEL/20 17 (ITA NO.6288/DEL/2015) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 KAD HOUSING PVT. LTD. 151, SAVITA VIHAR DELHI PAN AACCK4705B ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 06, ROOM NO.364, ARA CENTRE, JHADEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. RAJES H JAIN, FCA RESPONDENT BY SMT. NAINA SOIN KAPIL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 0 1 / 01 /2 0 1 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02 / 01 /201 9 2 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: ITA NO.6288/DEL/2015 AND CO.NO.180/DEL/2017 ARE APPEAL BY REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - XXIV, DELHI DATED 11.09.2015 PERTAINING TO A. Y. 2007 - 08. THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE DISPOSE D OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE READ : - 1 . T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND FACTS. 2 . ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN QUASHING THE ORDER U/S 147 ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. 3 . ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT FRESH EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF SURVEY REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING WAS AVAILABLE FOR FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN MONEY IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY THROUGH PROPER COMPANIES . 4 . ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN QUASHING THE ORDER U/S 147 AND THEREBY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1.85 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 5 . ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN QUASHING ORDER U/S 147 AND THEREBY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3.33 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN FORM OF COMMISSION PAID TO THE ENTRY OPERATORS. 6 . THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND ANY/ ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. GROUND NO.1 IS OF GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 3 4. GROUND NO.2 AND 3 GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. 5. BRIEFLY STATED THAT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS FR AMED U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 24.12.2009. THE SEARCH SEIZURE ACTION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF KM GROUP OF CASES INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE ON 27.06.2013. DURING THE COURSE OF PRE SEARCH INVESTIGATION IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE FORM OF SHARE PREMIUM / SHARE CAPITAL. 6. PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE REASONS AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 27.03.2014. THE REASONS SO RECORDED READ AS UNDER : - ON PERUSAL OF THE LET TER NO. F. NO.DDIT(INV)/UNIT V (1) /2013 - 14/312 DT: 21.03.20 RECEIVED FROM DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) UNIT V(L), NEW DELHI, REGARD ING RECEIVING OF BOGUS SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BY THE M/S KAD NOUSIL PVT LTD DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07. M/S KAD HOUSING PVT LTD THE COMPANY HAS SHOWN TO HAVE RAISED SHARE CAPITAL ALLOTTING SHARES TO THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES APART FROM THE INFUSION OF SHARE CAPITA FROM THE DIRECTORS AND FAMILY MEMBERS: S. 0 . NAME FINANCIAL YEAR AMOUNT (RS.) 1 M/S RIBBEL MANUFACTURING AND EXPORTERS PVT LTD 2006 - 07 15,00,000/ - 2 M/S APT PROPERTIES PVT LTD 2006 - 07 25,00,000/ - 3 M/S SCIENT INFORMATICS I PVT LTD ML 2006 - 07 17,50,000/ - 4 M/S MULTITECH SEMICONDUCTORS PVT LTD 2006 - 07 20,00,000/ - 5 M/S BRAINSOFT INFO C ONSULTANTS PVT LTD 2006 - 07 2,00,000/ - 6 M/S CHARDHAN IMPEX PVT LTD 2006 - 07 25,00,000/ - 7 M/S SHWETA MEHAPDI PRODUCTS PVT LTD 2006 - 07 25,00,000/ - 4 8 M/S TEJASVI INVESTMENT PVT LTD 2006 - 07 4,00,000/ - TOTAL 1,33,50,000/ THE ABOVE FACTS WERE CONFR ONTED TO SH AMIT JAIN, DIRECTOR IN M/S KAD HOUSING PVT LTD AND M/S KAJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 27.06.2013 AND HIS STATEMENT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - (RS.15.19 CRS - RS.1.72 CRS) WERE RAISED, HOW AND WHEN SAME WERE RAISED ? I WILL FURNISH THE RELEVANT DETAILS A WEEK S TIME. WE ARE SITTING IN YOUR OFFICE, PLEASE CHECK THE ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY M/S. KADHPL FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010 - 11 AND FURNISH THE RELEVANT DETAIL. RECORDING OF STATEMENT RESUMED AT 5.45 AM ON 18.08.2013. S. 0 . NAME FINANCIA L YEAR AMOUNT (RS.) 1 M/S RIBBEL MANUFACTURING AND EXP ORTERS PVT LTD 2006 - 07 15,00,000/ - 2 M/S APT PROPERTIES PVT LTD 2006 - 07 25,00,000/ - 3 M/S SCIENT INFORMATICS I PVT LTD ML 2006 - 07 17,50,000/ - 4 M/S MULTITECH SEMICONDUCTORS PVT LTD 2006 - 07 20,00,000/ - 5 M/S BRAINSOFT INFO CONSULTANTS PVT LTD 2006 - 07 2, 00,000/ - 6 M/S CHARDHAN IMPEX PVT LTD 2006 - 07 25,00,000/ - 7 M/S SHWETA MEHAPDI PRODUCTS PVT LTD 2006 - 07 25,00,000/ - 8 M/S TEJASVI INVESTMENT PVT LTD 2006 - 07 4,00,000/ - TOTAL 1,33,50,000/ THE ABOVE FACTS WERE CONFRONTED TO SH AMIT JAIN, DIRECT OR IN M/S KAD HOUSING PVT. LTD AND M/S KAJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 27.06.2013 AND HIS STATEMENT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - Q - 28: THE AUTHORIZED CAPITAL AND UP CAPITAL OF KAD HOUSING PVT LTD IS RS. CRS AND RS. 4.57 CRS RESP ECTIVELY. THE YEAR WISE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND PREMIUMS RAISED IN THE CASE OF KADHPL ARE AS UNDER - FINANCIAL YEAR SHARE APPLICATION MONEY PENDING ALLOTMENT PREMIUM 2007 - 08 0 0.76 2008 - 09 1.3 0.99 2009 - 10 1.72 9.99 2010 - 11 15.19 9.99 PLEASE EXPLAIN FROM WHOM THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 13.47 CRS_ 5 Q.30 PLEASE STATE WHETHER M/S. KAD HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED HAS ENTERED INTO ANY FINANCIAL TRANSACTION WITH M /S. SALWAN DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. M/S. FAIR N SQUARE EXPORTS PVT. LTD. M/S. RIBBEL MANUFACTURES AND EXPORTS PVT. LTD. M/S. APT PROPERTIES PVT LTD. M/S. SCIENT INFORMATICS I PVT LTD. M/S. MULTITECH SEMICONDUCTORS PVT. LTD. M/S. BRAINSOFT INFO CONSULTANTS PVT LTD. M./S. CHARDHAN IMPEX PVT LTD IF YES, PLEASE PROVIDE RELEVANT DETAIL. ANS : AS PER MEMORY IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I HAVE HEARD THE NAME OF THESE COMPANIES AND M/.S. KAD HOUSING PVT. LTD. HAS ENTERED INTO SOME FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WHICH I DON T REMEMBER, I WILL FURNISH THE RELEVANT DETAILS WITHIN A WEEK S TIME. Q - 32 PLEASE STATE WHETHER YOU KNOW THE DIRECTORS OF THESE COMPANIES? IF YES, PLEASE GIVE THEIR NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS? ANS : NO. I DO NOT KNOW THE DIRECTORS OF ANY OF THESE COMPANIES. THEREFORE, I CANNOT GIVE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ANY OF THE DIRECTORS OF ANY THESE COMPANIES. Q - 33 PLEASE GIVE THE COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THESE COMPANIES. ANS : SINCE THE TRANSACTIONS ARE VERY OLD, I WILL FURNISH THE REQUIRED DETAILS IN WEEK S TIME. FROM THE ABOVE STATEMENT, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS EVEN EVASIVE REPLIES AND NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN IN WHAT MARINER IT HAS GOT THE INVESTMENTS F ROM THE AFORE - MENTIONED NON - DESCRIPT COMPANIES. IT CAN BE CLEARLY SEEN THAT THESE COMPANIES DO NOT HAVE ANY FINANCIAL WORTH TO MAKE VESTMENT IN THE SHARES OF THE COMPANIES OF KM GROUP. ALL THE COMPANIES WHO HAVE RESTED AND GIVEN SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ARE FOUND TO BE PAPER AND OF NON - DESCRIPT NATURE DURING POST SEARCH INVESTIGATIONS. MERE RECEIPT OF MONEY THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES. A S S ESSEE COU L D NEVER FILE ANY PIECE O F EVIDENCE THAT IT EVER INTERACTED WITH THE INV ESTOR COMPANIES AFTER THE ALLOT MENT OF SHARES AND RECEIPT OF MONEY FROM THEM. NO DIVIDEND HAS EVER BEEN PAID TO THESE COMPANIES. NO PERSONS HAS EVER ATTENDED PROCEEDINGS . IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THEM U/ S 13 1 ( 1 A} OF IT ACT. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, MOST OF THE INVESTOR COMPANI ES ARE CONTROLLED BY KNOWN OPERATOR SH. MAHAVIR JAIN. 6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNT ED MONEY IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE NO DESCRIPT./ BOGUS COMPANIES I N ITS BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, I HAVE THE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE TAXABLE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,33,50,000/ - HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HENCE, KINDLY FIND ENCLOSED HEREWITH PROPOSAL FOR ACCORDING FOR TAKING ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE IT ACT FOR THE A. Y. 2007 - 08 IN THE CASE OF M./S. KAD HOUSING PVT. LTD. 7. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 FILED A LETTER DATED 17.06.2014 STATING THAT THE RETURN FILED U/S 139 MAY BE TREATED AS C OMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 142 ( 1) AND 143 (2) OF THE ACT ALONGWITH A QUESTIONNAIRE . 8. ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCESHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS RAISED SHARE CAPITAL AND / OR ALLOTTED TO THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES AND RECEIVED AMOUNTS MENTIONED EACH : - S. NO. NAME F.Y AMOUNT 1 M/S. RIBBEL MANUFACTURING AND EXPORTERS PRIVATE LIMITED 2006 - 07 15,00,000/ - 2 M/S. APT PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMIT ED 2006 - 07 25,00,000/ - 3 M/S. SCIENT INFORMATICS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED 2006 - 07 40,00,000/ - 4 M/S. MULTITECH SEMICONDUCTORS PRIVATE LIMIIED 2006 - 07 20,00,0CW, 7 5 M/S. BRAINSOFT INFO CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED 2006 - 07 20,00,000/ - 6. M/S CHARDHAM IMPEX PRIV ATE LIMITED 2006 - 07 25,00,000/ - ? 7 M/S SHWETA MEHNDI PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED 2006 - 07 25,00,000/ - 8. M/S TEJASVI INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED 2006 - 07 15,00,000/ - 9. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INFORMATION U/S 133 (6) OF THE ACT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE COMPANIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THESE COMPANIES WERE REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE COPIES OF ACCOUNTS OF LOAN AND ADVANCES, TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, TO FURNISH COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS , STATE NATURE OF THEIR BUSINESS AND COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET AND P & L A/C FOR THE YEAR RELEVANT TO A. Y. 2007 - 08. REPLIES WERE RECEIVED FROM THESE COMPANIES AND THE DETAILS RECEIVED ARE AS UNDER : - SR. INVESTOR SHARE ALLOTTED AGAINST APPLICATION SHARE APPLICATION MONEY PENDING : NO MONEY OF RS. 10 EACH FOR ALLOTMENT FOR RS. 10 EACH PER SHARE NO. ALLOTMENT TOTAL NO. APPLICATI ON TOTAL SHARES PRICE PER SHARE AMOUNT SHARES PRICE PER SHARE AMOUNT 1 BRAINSOFT INFOCONSUITANTS PRIVATE LIMITED 20,000 100 20,00.000 2 SHWETA MEHANDI PRODUCTS PRIVATE 2,50,000 10 25,00,000 3 LIMITED RIBBEL MANUFACTURERS & EXPORTERS PRIVATE LIMITED 1,50,000 10 15,00,000 4 APT PROPERTIES 2,50,000. '10 25,00.000 PRIVATE LIMITED 5 S CIENT INFORMATICS 1,50,000 10 15,00,000 25,000 100 2 5,00,000 6 MULTITECH SEMICONDUCTORS 2,00,000 10 20,00,000 8 7 TEJASVI INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED 15000 100 15,00,000 8 CHARDHAM IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED 2,50,000 10 25,00,000 TOTAL 1,2 5,00,000 60,00000 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THESE DETAILS AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOTHING BUT IT IS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY INTRODUCED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION M ONEY AND ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT U/S 68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. 11. THE ASSESSEE AGITATED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) STRONGLY CONTENDING THAT THE REASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW IN AS MUCH AS IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALL THE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WERE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE REASON S RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED AFTER FOUR YEARS AND THEREFORE, PROVISO T O SECTION 147 SQUARELY APPLY. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R THERE IS NO INDICATION OF HOW THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY REASON OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION BY ANNULLING THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER FRAMED U/S. 147 OF THE ACT. 9 13. BEFORE US THE DR VEHEMENTLY STATED THAT REOPENING IS VALID SINCE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE FACTS WHICH WERE UNEARTHED BY A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION. IT I S THE SAY OF THE DR THAT SINCE THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL EVIDENCE FOR REOPENING THE COMPLETE ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE THE NOTICE IS SUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT IS VALID IN LAW. THE DR FURTHER POINT ED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOWHERE MENTIONED THAT HE HAS CALLED FOR THE RELEVANT DETAILS EXAMINED AND FOUND IN ORDER. THE DR CONTINUED STATING THAT A MENTION OF FACT CANNOT BE CONSTI TUTED AS VERIFIED AND EXAMINED. THE DR VEHEMENTLY STATED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUES ON MERITS AND AS SIMPLY ANALYSED THE ASSESSMENT. 14. PER CONTRA THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 15. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFULLY CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. A PERUSAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION IN THE REASONS RECORDED THAT THERE IS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY OF MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT AFTER A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM END OF ASSESSMENT YEAR IN CASE WHERE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED U/S 147/ 143 (3) OF THE 10 ACT IS ILL EGAL AND INVALID AND THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VINIYAS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT (P) LTD. WHEREIN THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER : - '7. ON GOING THROUGH THE PURPORTED REASONS WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE NOT HAVING MADE A FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF THE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. ON THE CONTRARY THE PURPORTED REASONS INDICATE THAT THE AMOUN TS MENTIONED THEREIN HAD BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS RECEIPTS FROM THE COMPANIES MENTIONED THEREIN. WE ALSO NOTE THAT AT SERIAL NO.5 OF THE LIST OF COMPANIES FROM WHICH AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED, THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOW N. THIS MEANS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE RECEIVED MONEY FROM ITSELF, WHICH CAN HARDLY BE AN ALLEGATION IN THIS CASE. 8. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS WE FEEL THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS APPROACHED THE MATTER IN THE CORRECT PERSPECTIVE AND HAS HELD THE ISSUANCE O F THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 30.7.2007 TO BE BAD IN LAW AND SO, TOO, ALL THE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO. THERE IS NO REASON FOR US TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER INASMUCH AS NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION.' 16. WE FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS U/S 68 OF THE ACT FOR ANY FRESH LOANS TAKEN DURING THE YEAR AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED. 17. WE FURTHER FIND THAT TH E FFA HAS ALSO CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBMIT COPIES OF THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE FOLLOWING D OCUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER : - I. APPLICATION OF SHARES 11 II. AFFIDAVIT III. INCOME TAX RETURNS FILED BY THE SHARE APPLICANTS IV. AUDITED BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE SHARE APPLICANTS V. BANK STATEMENT OF THE SHARE APPLIC ANTS. VI. FORM - 2 FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES TO THE SHARE APPLICANTS. 18. THE AFOR E STATED DETAILS CLEARLY SHOW THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ELABORATE ENQUIRY TO EXA MINE THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN THE LIGHT OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND AFTER SATISFYING HIM SELF HE ACCEPTED THE SAME AS GENUINE. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT. 19. THE CONTENTION OF THE DR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT HOLD ANY WATER BECAUSE WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS SATISFIED WITH A QUERY HE L EAVE S THAT QUERY AND MOVE ON TO MAKE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF THE QUERIES WHICH ARE NOT SATISFACTOR IL Y REPL IED . 20 . THE DR HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISION IN HER WRITTEN SYNOPSIS. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED EACH D ECISION AND FIND THAT THEY ARE MISPLACED IN AS MUCH AS IN NONE OF THE DECISION THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 WAS CONSIDERED WHEN THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE TRUE AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE 12 OF THE DECISION RELATE TO THE INFORMATION REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE CONSIDERED AS NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO VALIDATE THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 2 1 . AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE IN THE CASE IN HAND THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISING A SPECIFIC QUERRY WHICH WAS DULY REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER THE DOCUMENTS COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 133 (6) OF THE ACT ARE THE SAME DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2 2 . CONSIDERING THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY IN THE LIGHT OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 147 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY QUASHED BY THE CIT(A). NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR GROUND NO.2 AND 3 ARE DISMISSED. THE OTHER G ROUNDS BECOME OTIOSE. 2 3 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. CO. NO. 180 /DEL/201 7 THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS LATE BY 596 DAYS. IN ITS REQUEST FOR CON DONATION OF DELAY THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DIREC TOR STATING THAT COUNSEL DID NOT ADVISE THE 13 ASSESSEE TO FILE CROSS OBJECTION AFTER RECEIVING THE INTIMATION THAT THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 2 4 . WE FIND THAT THE REASON OF DELAY AS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FLIMSY. MORE OVER, THE REGULAR COUNSEL WHO DID NOT ADVISE THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE CROSS OBJECTION HAS NOT COME UP WITH ANY AFFIDAVIT. NOT FINDING THE REASONS CONVINCING THE DELAY IS NOT CON DONED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER P RONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02 . 0 1 . 2 01 9 . SD/ - SD/ - ( SUCHITRA KAMBLE ) ( N. K. BILLAIYA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT M EMBER * NEHA* DATE: - . 0 1 .201 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 05.12.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSIT E OF ITAT 02.09.201 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER 14