M/s IVY Health & Lifesciences Private Limited, Mohali V. Addl. CIT, Mohali

ITA 646/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8230 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained cash credit; Bogus Share capital; Question of law; Accommodation entries; Assessment record; Capital receipt; Onus to prove; Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 133(6); 195; 250; 13

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 646/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S IVY HEALTH & LIFE SCIENCES VS. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6, PRIVATE LIMITED, MOHALI MOHALI PAN NO. AABCI4594F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. AJAY JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 01/03/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/03/2017 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, CHANDIGARH DATED 27.04.2016 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09 CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,00,000/- ON ACCO UNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM M/S TAURAS IRON & STEEL CO. PVT . LTD (IN SHORT M/S TISCPL). 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 2,17,38,118/- ON 26.9. 20088. THE CASE WAS 2 SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND STATUTORY NOTICES WERE IS SUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED REQUISITE INFORMATION AND PRODUCE D BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A HOSPITAL IN MOHALI UND ER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S IVY SUPER SPECIALTY HOSPITAL. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE AN INCREASE OF PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL FROM RS. 50 LACS TO RS. 9.33 CRORES AND DECREASE IN SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM RS. 2. 61 CRORES TO RS. 50 LACS. THE ASSESSEE WAS TO FURNISH DETAILS OF PERSON S WHO DEPOSITED THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND WERE ALLOTTED SHARES. T HE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE REQUISITE DETAILS WHICH ARE PLACED ON ASSESSMENT RECORD. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS STARTED I TS BUSINESS ACTIVITY W.E.F. 30.11.2007 AND ACCORDINGLY ALL THE REVENUE E XPENSES UP TO 30.11.2007 HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PRE-OPERATIVE AND H AVE BEEN ALLOCATED / APPROPRIATED FOR CAPITALIZATION OF VARIOUS ASSETS. IT IS NOTED THAT CIT-2 CHANDIGARH HAS INFORMED THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT INFORMATION IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF A DIT (INVESTIGATION), NEW DELHI. THE INVESTIGATION WING WHILE CARRYING OU T SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON 15.9.2008 IN THE CASE OF SHRI TARUN GOYAL, DIRECTOR OF M/S TISCPL NEW DELHI HAD DETECTED THAT ACCOMMODA TION ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED TO VARIOUS BENEFICIARIES BY ONE SHRI TARUN GOYAL, C.A. NEW DELHI. IT WAS INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY W AS ALSO ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY OF SUCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PERTAININ G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 UNDER APPEAL FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 50 LACS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RE CEIVED FROM M/S TISCPL I.E ADDRESS, PAN NUMBER NUMBER, BALANCE SHEE T OF THE SAID 3 COMPANY, COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OF THE SAID COMPANY AND COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHIC H CHEQUE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION. THE ASSESS EE FILED REPLY BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER EXPLAINING THEREIN THAT IN THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED RS. 50,00,000/- AS SH ARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM M/S TISCPL, I.E. RS. 25 LACS VIDE CHEQUE NO. 230698 ON 6.8.2007, RS. 10 LACS VIDE CHEQUE NO. 248015 AND RS. 15 LACS VIDE CHEQUE NO. 248016 ON DATED 14.9.2007. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRON TED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY IS BENEFICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF RS. 50 LACS WHICH WERE RECEIVED FROM SH. TARUN GOYAL AND WHY THE SAM E SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ENCLOSED S EVERAL DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVE D WHICH ARE SHARE APPLICATION BY COMPANY, AFFIDAVIT OF DIRECTOR OF TH E COMPANY, BANK STATEMENT OF THE COMPANY SHOWING PAYMENT OF SHARE A PPLICATION MONEY, COPY OF BOARDS RESOLUTION OF COMPANY, LIST OF DIRE CTORS OF THE COMPANY, COPY OF PAN. CARD OF COMPANY AND COPY OF BANK STATE MENT SHOWING RECEIPT OF SHARES AND IDENTITY OF THE APPLICANTS. THE ASSES SING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THESE DOCUMENTS AND EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE BECAUSE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT AND GENUINE NESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WAS NOT PROVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED LETTE R U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO M/S TISCPL NEW DELHI BUT NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PR OVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTIONS IN THE MATTER. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS PAID BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y. THE ASSESSING 4 OFFICER ALSO REPRODUCED THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY INVESTIGATION WING, NEW DELHI IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI TARUN GOYAL RECORDED ON OATH BY THE INVESTIGATION WING EX PLAINING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF BE BENEFICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT INFORMATIO N RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING, NEW DELHI CLEARLY ESTABLISH THA T M/S TISCPL NEW DELHI IS IN REALITY A BOGUS COMPANY AND HAS PROVIDE D ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT PART O F THE BANKS STATEMENT OF THE SHARE APPLICANT WAS PROVIDED, THEREFORE, ASSESS EE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE ON RECORD THE ADDITION IS MADE OF RS. 50 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AND INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED ACCORDINGLY. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND DISMI SSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REFERRED TO SEVERAL DOCU MENTS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE PROVED GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY RECEIVED FROM M/S TISCPL, NEW DELHI THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL WHICH HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED BY ALL THE DOCUMENTS. THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY IS REGISTERED WITH ROC AND ASSESSED TO TAX AND IS A GENUINE EXIST ING COMPANY. HE HAS REFERRED TO PB-11 TO SHOW THAT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR T HE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAD BEEN RETURNED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, TH EREFORE, THERE IS NO 5 QUESTION OF ANY ACCOMMODATION ENTRY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FILED COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF A SSESSEE DATED 27.1.2005. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE STARTED ON 30.11.2007, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF RECEIVING A NY ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. MANDI ALLOYS (P) LTD. IN ITA NO. 222/CHD/20 15 DATED 27.11.2015 IN WHICH ON IDENTICAL FACTS WITH REGARD TO THE RECE IPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM SHRI TARUN GOYAL, THE ADDITION WAS DELET ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. HE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF THE A SSESSEE. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAVE BEEN REFUNDED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR IS NO G ROUND TO DELETE THE ADDITION. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT CH ANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. METLONICS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD IN IT A 1121/CHD/2013 DATED 13.3.2015, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 68 WOU LD GET INVOLVED THE MOVEMENT ENTRY OF THE CREDIT OF A SUM IS MADE IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE HO N'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DWARKADHISH INVESTMENT P. LTD [2011] 330 ITR 298 (DELHI) HELD AS UNDER:- IN ANY MATTER, THE ONUS OF PROOF IS NOT A STATIC ON E. THOUGH IN SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, T HE INITIAL BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE ASSESSEE YET ON CE HE PROVES THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS/SHARE APPLICANTS BY EITHER FURNISHING THEIR PAN NUMBER OR 6 INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT NUMBER AND SHOWS THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION BY SHOWING MONEY IN HIS BOOKS EITHER BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR BY DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE, THEN THE ONUS OF PROOF WOULD SHI FT TO THE REVENUE. JUST BECAUSE THE CREDITORS/SHARE APPLICANTS COULD NOT BE FOUND AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN, IT WOULD NOT GIVE THE REVENUE THE RIGHT TO INVOKE SECT ION 68 . ONE MUST NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT IT IS THE REVENUE WHICH HAS ALL THE POWER AND WHEREWITHAL TO TRACE ANY PERSON. MOREOVER, IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCING AND TRADING OF SHARES. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ON SCRUTINY OF ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND AN ADDITION OF RS. 71,75,000 IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R SOUGHT AN EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THIS ADDITION IN THE SHARE CAPITAL. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED A DETAILED EXPLANATION. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN T HE ADDITION OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM FIVE OF IT S SUBSCRIBERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAD E AN ADDITION OF RS. 35,50,000 WITH THE AID OF SECTIO N 68 OF THE ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD PROVED THE EXISTENCE OF THE SHAREHOLDE RS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE INCOME- TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AS IT WAS ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS AND THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT : 7 HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEALS, THAT THE DELETION OF ADDITION WAS JUSTIFIED. 10. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GP INTERNATIONAL LTD [2010] 325 ITR 25 (P&H) HELD AS UNDER:- HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, (I) THAT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 250 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A CONFIRMATION CERTIFICATE FROM A ALONG WITH PAN NUMBER. THE ASSESSEE HAD CONFIRMED THAT THE LIABILITY WAS STILL OUTSTANDING. HENCE SECTION 41(1) WAS NOT APPLICABLE . (II) THAT AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, T HE ASSESSEE HAD SUPPLIED THE LIST OF THE PERSONS TO WH OM THE SHARES WERE SOLD ALONG WITH THEIR ADDRESSES. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DOUBT THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECEIPT OF APPLICATION MONEY. MERELY BECAUSE SOME OF THE PERSONS DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT, IT COULD NOT BE TAKEN THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT GENUINE. THE AMOUNT COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VALUE CAPITAL SERVICES P. LTD. [2008] 307 ITR 334 (DEHI) HELD AS UNDER:- IN RESPECT OF AMOUNTS SHOWN AS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM 33 PERSONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSE E TO PRODUCE ALL THESE PERSONS. WHILE ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION AND THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THREE PERSONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE RESPON SE FROM THE OTHERS WAS EITHER NOT AVAILABLE OR WAS 8 INADEQUATE AND ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 46 LAKHS PERTAINING TO 30 PERSONS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS. ON FURTHER APPEAL : HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE ADDITIONAL BURDEN WAS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO SHOW THAT EVEN IF THE SHARE APPLICANTS DID NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT, THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THEM ACTUALL Y EMANATED FROM THE COFFERS OF THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ENABLE IT TO BE TREATED AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AROSE. 12. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . LOVELY EXPORTS P. LTD 319 ITR (STAT.) 5 HELD THAT IF SHARE APPLICATI ON MONEY IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHARE HOLDE RS, WHOSE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PROCEED TO REOPEN THEIR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW. HENCE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT. 13. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. BH ARAT ENGINEER AND CONSTRUCTION CO. [1972] 83 ITR 187 (SC) HELD AS U NDER:- THE ASSESSEE, AN ENGINEERING-CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS IN MAY, 1943. IN ITS ACCOUNT S THERE WERE SEVERAL CASH CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE FIRST YEAR OF ITS BUSINESS TOTALLING RS. 2,50,000. THOUGH THE EXPLANATION REGARDING THE CASH CREDIT ENTRIES WAS F OUND TO BE FALSE, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THESE CASH 9 CREDITS COULD NOT REPRESENT THE INCOME OR PROFITS O F THE ASSESSEE AS THEY WERE ALL MADE VERY SOON AFTER THE COMPANY COMMENCED ITS ACTIVITIES: HELD, THAT THE INFERENCE DRAWN FROM THE FACTS PROV ED WAS A QUESTION OF FACT AND THE TRIBUNAL'S FINDING ON TH AT QUESTION WAS FINAL. A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TOOK TIM E TO EARN PROFITS AND IT COULD NOT HAVE EARNED A HUGE PR OFIT WITHIN A FEW DAYS AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF ITS BUS INESS. HENCE, IT WAS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE CASH CR EDIT ENTRIES REPRESENTED CAPITAL RECEIPTS THOUGH FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COME OUT WIT H THE TRUE STORY AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF THE RECEIPTS. 14. THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS . MANDI ALLOYS PVT LTD. (SUPRA) CONSIDERED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AND IN PARA 4 TO 14 HELD AS UNDER:- 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT W AS CONDUCTED AT THE OFFICE PREMISES OWNED BY SHRI TARU N GOYAL, C.A., NEW DELHI BY INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT ON 15.09.2008. DURING THE SEARCH OPERATI ON, IT WAS FOUND THAT SHRI TARUN GOYAL WAS PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY I.E. M/S MANDI ALLOYS PVT. LTD. HA S INTRODUCED RS. 15 LACS AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY F ROM TWO COMPANIES OWNED BY SHRI TARUN GOYAL I.E. M/S GEEFCEE FINANCE LTD. RS. 10 LACS, M/S TEJASVI INVESTIGATION PVT. LTD. RS. 5 LACS ( TOTAL RS. 15 L ACS). ON THE BASIS OF THIS INFORMATION, ASSESSING OFFICER RE OPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, HAS NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 1.40 CR, LI ST OF 10 THE SAME WAS PROVIDED AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT GENUINENESS OF THESE TRANSACTIONS SHALL HAVE TO BE VERIFIED. THE ASSESSE E FURNISHED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ON RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND ALSO PRODUCED SEVERAL PERSONS AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF 8 PERSONS/ENTITIES IN A SUM OF RS. 94 LACS AND FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT RS. 94 LACS INTRODUCED ON SHARE CAPITAL BY 8 PERSONS/ENTITLES A RE NOT GENUINE TRANSACTIONS. THE ADDITION OF SAME WAS MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESS MENT BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT T HERE WAS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSES SMENT. AS REGARDS THE ADDITIONS ON MERIT, THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED EXPLANATIONS REGARDING ALL 8 PERSONS/ENTITIES AND D ETAILS OF THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER I N WHICH ASSESSEE BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED GENUINE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THESE PERSONS. ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE ASSESSED TO TAX. CONFIRMATION ABOUT CONTRIBUTION OF SHARE CAPITAL IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALONGWITH THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS AND INCOME TAX RETURNS AND BALANCE SHEET ETC. WERE PRODUCED. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO THE GENUINE TRANSACTIONS. THE DEPARTMENT SOLELY RELIED UPON STATEMENT OF SHRI TAR UN GOYAL, HOWEVER, HE WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR CROSS- EXAMINATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, H IS STATEMENT CANNOT BE READ IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON SEVERAL DECISION S OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO GENUINE TRANSACTIONS OF SHARE 11 APPLICATION AND RECEIVED GENUINE SHARE APPLICATION. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE IDENTICAL CASE OF M/ S KISCO CASTING PVT. LTD. IN ITA 685/2011, ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 22.06.2012 ON IDENTICAL FACTS DELETED THE SIMILAR ADDITION. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS PLACED ON RECORD. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CLAIMED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. 83 ITR 187 ON THE PROPOSITION THAT WHEN THERE WERE NO MANUFACTURI NG ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BY US IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN DETAIL HAVE B EEN REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHI CH IS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MORE OR LESS REITERATED THE SAME FACTS. 7. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL O N RECORD FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED DETAILS OF ASSESSMENT, PAN, AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND BALANCE SHEET , BANK STATEMENTS, CONFIRMATION ETC., SHARES ALLOTTED TO CONCERNED SUBSCRIBERS. IN THE CASE OF MS. PINKI RAJ , THE CONFIRMATION AND BANK STATEMENT (NRE ACCOUNT) ARE A LSO FILED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, NOTED THAT RELEVANT EVIDENCES REGARDING IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS ARE ALREADY FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, IDENTITY OF TH E PERSONS ARE ESTABLISHED AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN PROVED BY ASSESSEE BY PROVING THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDER, THEIR CR EDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE 12 BEEN PROVED BY ASSESSEE NOT ONLY AT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STAGE BUT ALSO AT THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS NOTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WI THOUT ANY REASONS AND WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC ALLEGATION OR DOCUMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, MADE THE ADDITION. T HE LD. CIT(APPEALS) REFERRED TO SEVERAL DECISIONS IN S UPPORT OF HIS FINDINGS INCLUDING THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS PVT. LT D. 216 CTR 195 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT, 'IF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY F ROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS, WHOSE NAMES ARE GIVEN T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO P ROCEED TO REOPEN THEIR INDIVIDUAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW B UT THESE AMOUNTS OF SHARE MONEY CANNOT BE REGARDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING P VT. LTD. IN ITA 685/2011 (SUPRA) AND NOTED THAT FACT REGARDING THE ENTRIES PERTAINING TO SHRI TARUL GOYA L ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AND THEREFORE, ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) REPROD UCED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING PVT. LTD. IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AND FOUND THAT THE FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING PVT. LTD. WHEREIN THE SIMILAR ADDITIONS HAV E BEEN DELETED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), FOLLOWING THE O RDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) DELETED THE ADDITION. 8. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), FOLLOWING THE SAME ORDER O F TRIBUNAL, CONFIRMED RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AN D HELD THAT RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE IS VALID ON THE IDENTICAL FACT. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED. 13 9. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND CONTENDED THAT ADDITION ON MERIT HAS BEEN WRONG LY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND RELIED UPON ORD ER OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V NAVODAYA CAST LES (P) LTD.50 TAXMAN.COM 110 AND DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NAVODAYA CASTLES (P) L TD. V CIT 56 TAXMAN.COM 18 IN WHICH SLP FILED BY ASSESS EE HAS BEEN DISMISSED. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES AND MATERIA L WERE PRODUCED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AS WELL AS AT RE-ASSESSMENT STAGE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDER, THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN TH E MATTER. THE ISSUE IS, THEREFORE, COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) AS WELL AS ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING (P) LTD. (SUPRA). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE REFERRED TO PB-6 WHICH IS DIRECTOR'S REPORT IN WHIC H IT WAS MENTIONED THAT 'PROJECT STARTS ITS PRODUCTION O N 02.05.2005'. PB-15 IS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FILED W ITH THE RETURN OF INCOME TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVI NG ONLY INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 9,522/- WHICH WAS DECLA RED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. PB-25 IS ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 UNDER APPEAL UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 10.10.2007 IN WHICH ALSO , ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT NO BUSINESS/MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE SAME EVIDENCES OF GENUINENESS OF THE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WERE FURNISHED A T THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STAGE AND ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE SAME IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. PB-1 IS 14 COMPUTATION OF INCOME TO SHOW THAT ONLY INTEREST IN COME HAS BEEN DECLARED. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT NO OPPORTU NITY WAS ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE SHRI TARUN GOYAL. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT RECENTLY ITAT CHANDIGA RH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S KUNDLES LOH UDYOG V ITO IN ITA 133/2010 VIDE ORDER VIDE ORDER DATED 21.10.2015 FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. 8 3 ITR 187 DELETED THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF TH E ACT. COPY OF THE ORDER IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE N O PRODUCTION STARTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THEREFORE, ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT COU LD NOT BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERI AL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE AT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STAGE FILED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITH REGARD TO PROVING IDENTITY OF THE SHAR E APPLICANTS, THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. NO BUSINESS/MANUFACT URING ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME BY SHOWING INTEREST IN COME AT RS. 9,522/-. SAME EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED BEFOR E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AN D ASSESSEE RELIED UPON DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AS WELL AS ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING P. LTD. THESE ORDERS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED I N THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVED G ENUINE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM 8 PERSONS/ENTITIES. TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CAST ING P.LTD. (SUPRA) IS ALSO FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK IN W HICH 15 ON IDENTICAL FACTS, ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON ACCO UNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY SHRI TARUN GOY AL, C.A., NEW DELHI. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS, THEREFOR E, JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS PVT. LTD.(SUPRA ) AS WELL AS DECISION OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CA SE OF M/S KISCO CASTING P.LTD. 12. HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F AGARWAL WAREHOUSING & LEASING LTD. VS CIT 257 ITR 235 HELD AS UNDER : 'THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE BINDING ON ALL THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FUNCTIONING UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE REQUIRE THAT THE ORDERS OF THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES SHOULD BE FOLLOWED UNRESERVEDLY BY THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO RIGHT TO COME TO A CONCLUSION CONTRARY TO THE ONE REACHED BY ANOTHER BENCH OF THE SAME TRIBUNAL ON THE SAME FACTS. IF THE TRIBUNAL WANTS TO TAKE AN OPINION DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE TAKEN BY AN EARLIER BENCH, IT OUGHT TO PLACE THE MATTER BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRIBUNAL SO THAT HE CAN HAVE THE CASE REFERRED TO A BENCH CONSISTING OF THREE OR MORE MEMBERS FOR WHICH THERE IS PROVISION IN THE INCOME TAX ACT ITSELF.' AND FURTHER HELD ; HELD, THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) NOT ONLY COMMITTED JUDICIAL IMPROPRIETY BUT ALSO ERRED IN LAW IN REFUSING TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 16 THE MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHO DECIDED THE APPEAL UPHOLDING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ALSO DID NOT OBSERVE DUE PROCEDURE.' 13. DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, NO DIFFERENT FA CTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT, THEREFORE, LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE I TAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING P.LTD. DELETED THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(APP EALS) HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTI ONAL ITAT CHANDIGARH FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELETING THE ADDITION. NO INFIRMITY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, ADDITION ON MER IT HAS BEEN CORRECTLY DELETED BY LD. CI T(APPEALS) FOLLOWI NG THE ORDER OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LOVEL Y EXPORTS LTD. (SUPRA) AND ORDER OF I TAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING PVT. LTD.(SU PRA). THE SOLE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT SINCE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS PENDING BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING PVT. LTD. (S UPRA) THEREFORE, ADDITION SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. MERELY BECAUSE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS PENDING IN HIGH COUR T AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NO GROUND TO T AKE CONTRARY VIEW IN THE MATTER. FURTHER, LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE WAS JUSTIFIED IN RELYING UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. (SUPRA) AND ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S KUNDLE LOH UDYOG (SUPRA), HOWEVER, LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT GI VEN ANY FINDING ON THE SAME. SINCE THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THEREFOR E, THERE IS NO NEED TO GO IN DETAIL ON THIS ASPECT AT THIS STAGE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 17 14. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITA T CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING P. LTD. (SUPRA) ALSO CONFIRMED THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESS MENT. THEREFORE, ONCE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS FOLLOWED THE O RDER OF TRIBUNAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELETING ADDITION, THEREFORE, NO CONTRARY VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN ON IDEN TICAL FACTS. FURTHER ISSUE OF RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 IS LEFT WITH ACADEMIC DISCUSSION ONLY ONCE ADDITION ON MERIT HAVE BEEN DELETED AND CONFIR MED BY US. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL. THE CROSS OBJECT ION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 14. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED THE IDENT ITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTIONS IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHARE A PPLICANT MONEY RECEIVED, SUPPORTED BY BANK STATEMENT AND MONEY WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY, THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY SHRI TARUN GOYAL, APPLICATION FOR APPLYING FOR SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH DETAILS OF PAYMENTS, BOARDS RESOLUTION, LIST OF DIRECTORS, COPY OF THE PAN NUMBERS AND CONFIRMATION . MORE SO, THE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE SHARE APPLICANT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YE AR. IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY DID NOT FILE ANY REPLY IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS INFLUENCED BY THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING, DELHI THAT SH ARE APPLICANT COMPANY 18 HAS PROVIDED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOWHERE NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, IF T HE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI TARU N GOYAL WHOSE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED BY INVESTIGATION WING AT DEL HI DURING THE SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THEIR CASE. THEREFORE, SUCH REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING NEW DELHI, AND STATEMENT OF SHRI TARUN GOYAL CANNOT BE READ IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT IS A FACT THAT DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS STARTED ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY W.E.F. 30.11.2007 AND ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER M/S T ISCPL NEW DELHI APPLIED FOR ALLOTMENT OF SHARES OF ASSESSEE COMPANY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. T HEREFORE, ON THIS REASON ALONE ADDITION U/S 68 COULD NOT BE MADE ON A CCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THE DECISION OF THE HON'BL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. (SUPR A) CLEARLY SUPPORT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY D ID NOT RECEIVE ANY BOGUS ENTRY. THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY COULD NOT REPRESENT THE INCOME OR PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S MANDI ALLOYS (P) LTD. (SUPRA). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NO T BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT EVEN IF THE SHARE APPLICANT DID NOT HAVE MEANS TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT, THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THEM AC TUALLY EMANATED FROM THE COFFERS OF THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ENABLE IT TO B E TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SUFFI CIENT EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE MATTER. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AGAINST 19 THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW, THAT ADDITION SHO ULD NOT BE MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 50 LACS. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 8 TH MARCH, 2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR