M/s Zirakpur Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6546/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5046 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH GOEL
• Keywords: Share purchase agreement; Question of law; Accommodation entries; Capital receipt; Onus to prove
• Section: 133(6); 68; 132; 139

Judgement Text

1 ITA.NO.6546/DEL./2016 M/S. ZIRAKPUR ESTATE P. LTD., DELHI. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC : DELHI SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.6546/DEL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 M/S. ZIRAKPUR ESTATE PVT. LTD., B-4, SATYA TOWER, 36, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, WAZIPUR, DELHI 110 052. PAN AAACZ2274N VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-18(4) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI ASHISH GOEL, C.A. FOR REVENUE : SHRI T. VASANTHAN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 16.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.08.2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-22, NEW DELHI, DATED 20 TH OCTOBER, 2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-2006. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT ON 20 TH OCTOBER, 2005 DECLARING INCOME AT RS.11,201. IT WAS PROCESSE D UNDER SECTION 143(1). SUBSEQUENTLY, AN INFORMATION WAS RE CEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING REGARDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TAKEN BY ASSESSEE OF RS.5 LAKHS EACH FROM TWO COMPANIES VIZ. , M/S. MEHUL 2 ITA.NO.6546/DEL./2016 M/S. ZIRAKPUR ESTATE P. LTD., DELHI. FINVEST P. LTD., AND M/S. AVAIL FINANCIAL SERVICES P. LTD., THROUGH THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS IN KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK AND ABN AMRO BANK. THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY RACKET WAS OPERATED B Y SHRI SURENDRA K. JAIN AND SHRI VIRENDRA K. JAIN WHO WERE SEARCHED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. THE ABOVE TWO COMPANI ES WERE AMONGST SEVERAL PAPER COMPANIES CONTROLLED AND OPER ATED BY SHRI SURENDRA K. JAIN AND HIS BROTHER. THESE WERE A PPROXIMATELY 100 ENTITIES. THE ACCOUNTS OF SUCH ENTITIES WERE MA INTAINED AT THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHRI SUREN DRA K. JAIN AND HIS BROTHER. DURING THE COURSE OF ENQUIRIES BY INVESTIGATION WING INCLUDING SEARCH/SURVEY, DATE-WISE, MONTH-WISE CASH BOOK DETAILS OF FUND TRANSFER, NAMES OF MIDDLEMEN INVOLV ED AND EVIDENCE OF COMMISSION PAYMENT AT RS.1.75% OF THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. ONE OF THE MIDDLEMEN SHRI RAJESH AGGARWAL HAD ADMITTED TO HAVE ENGAGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES THROUGH SHRI SURENDRA K. JAIN AND HIS BROTHER SHRI V.K. JAIN THROUGH VARIOUS PAPER COMPAN IES FOR SEVERAL BENEFICIARIES. THE COMPANIES DID NOT HAVE P ROPER REGISTERED OFFICE AND OPERATE FROM SMALL ROOMS. IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF SOME OF THE PAPER COMPANIES, MOBILE NUM BERS OF THESE PERSONS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR MOBILE BANKING . A.O. NOTED 3 ITA.NO.6546/DEL./2016 M/S. ZIRAKPUR ESTATE P. LTD., DELHI. SOME OF THE DETAILS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AU DITOR SHRI SUDIPTO MUKHERJEE WHOSE NAME APPEARED IN THE AUDITE D ACCOUNTS OF M/S. MEHUL FINVEST P. LTD., DENIED HAVI NG AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID COMPANY AND HAS STATED ON OATH THAT HIS SIGNATURES WERE FORGED. IN THE CASE OF M/S. AVAIL F INANCIAL SERVICES P. LTD., THE AUDITOR SHRI RUPAL JAIN STATE D ON OATH THAT HIS SIGNATURES WERE MISSING ON THE PAGE CONTAINING DETAILS OF UNQUOTED INVESTMENT BY M/S. AVAIL FINANCIAL SERVICE S P. LTD., WHICH CONVEY THAT THE CORRESPONDING PAGE IN THE AUD ITED ACCOUNTS WAS REPLACED. 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE BACKGROUND AND ON THE BASI S OF ABOVE INFORMATION, A.O. RECORDED THE REASONS FOR IS SUING OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. T HE REASONS ARE REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. COPY OF THE REASO NS WERE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO OBJECTION HAV E BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL RECEIPTS FROM THE ABOVE TWO COMPANIES BE NOT ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY WHICH IS REPRODU CED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BRIEFLY EXPLA INED THAT 4 ITA.NO.6546/DEL./2016 M/S. ZIRAKPUR ESTATE P. LTD., DELHI. ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED BY ASSISTANT REGI STRAR OF COMPANIES NCT OF DELHI AND HARYANA WITH THE MAIN OB JECTS OF DOING BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATES. THE DETAILS OF PROM OTERS/DIRECTORS WERE FURNISHED. THE SHARE HOLDER COMPANIES SUBSCRIB ED SHARE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND SHARES HAVE BEE N ALLOTTED WHICH HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THEM. THE SUBSCRIBER CO MPANIES MADE PAYMENTS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES WHICH A RE TAKEN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NO CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN T HE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE SUBSCRIBERS. ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CASH FOR TAKING THESE CHEQUES, COPIES OF SUBSCRIBERS BANK S TATEMENTS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. BOTH THE ABOVE SUBSCRIB ERS HAS SUFFICIENT FUNDS WITH THEM AND HAVE ALSO FILED CONF IRMATIONS ALONG WITH BOARD RESOLUTION AND COPY OF THEIR CERTI FICATES ALONG WITH COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION. COPIES OF THEIR AUDITED ACCOUNTS ARE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD. T HE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED REPORT OF REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, DEL HI OF BOTH THE ABOVE SUBSCRIBER COMPANY ALONG WITH THEIR ACCOUNTS. IT WAS, THEREFORE, EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE-COMP ANY HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY OF THE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES, TH EIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION . DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS ALSO RECEIVED SHARE APPLI CATION 5 ITA.NO.6546/DEL./2016 M/S. ZIRAKPUR ESTATE P. LTD., DELHI. MONEY FROM OTHER COMPANIES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DOUB TED. NO ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION OF BOTH THE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES ALONG WITH THEIR BANK STATEMENTS, PAN AND ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS. THE SAME CONTENTIONS WERE MADE BEFO RE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE A.O. BUT HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY A.O. TH EREFORE, THESE DOCUMENTS WERE REFERRED TO THE A.O. FOR FILIN G HIS REPORT AND CASE RECORDS TO VERIFY DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, THE A.O. DID NOT FILE ANY REPORT BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ON THESE SUBMISSI ONS AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE, NOTED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS/PAPERS HAVE BEEN FILED B EFORE A.O. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF INVEST IGATION WING AND OTHER MATERIAL, CONFIRMED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT NO BUSIN ESS ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THAT VIDE ORDER SHEET DATED 19 TH OCTOBER, 2016, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED WHETHER HE CAN PRODUCE DIRECTORS OF BOTH THE 6 ITA.NO.6546/DEL./2016 M/S. ZIRAKPUR ESTATE P. LTD., DELHI. CREDITOR COMPANIES, IF THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO TH E A.O. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE DUE TO LAPSE OF TIME AS SHARES HAVE NOW BEEN BOUGHT BAC K. THE LD. CIT(A) HEARD THE APPELLANT AND PASSED THE ORDER ON THE NEXT DAY ON 20 TH OCTOBER, 2016 BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPRESSED INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF BOTH THE COMP ANIES. THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NOVA PROMOTERS AND FINLEASE P. LTD., 342 ITR 169 AN D CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 6. AS REGARDS THE COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.17,500, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSES SEE BECAUSE OF THE MAIN ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED . THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED. 7. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BE FORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE FURNI SHED DETAILED DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE BEFORE A.O. TO PROVE THE GEN UINENESS OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED. IN THE CASE OF ME HUL FINVEST P. LTD., ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RETURN OF 7 ITA.NO.6546/DEL./2016 M/S. ZIRAKPUR ESTATE P. LTD., DELHI. INCOME ALONG WITH AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT S, COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR SHARES, BANK ACCOUNT, AUDITED S TATEMENTS AND COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION OF SHARES, BOARD RESOLUTIO N, COPY OF SHARE CERTIFICATES, COPY OF RECEIPT OF SHARES ALONG WITH MEMORANDUM OF ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION WERE FILED. I N THE CASE OF M/S. AVAIL FINANCIAL SERVICES P. LTD., SIMILAR DOC UMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE A.O. IN THIS CASE, EVEN THE A.O. ASKE D FOR INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) FROM THIS PARTY DIRECTLY, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE NO.103 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE SUBSCRIBER IS FILED AT PAGE 104 IN WHICH THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THE INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ALL THE DOCUMEN TS LIKE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE, BANK STATEMENT, AUDITED ACCOUNTS, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RETURN, SHARE CERTIFICATES, CONFI RMATION OF SHARES, ALONG WITH BOARD RESOLUTION WERE FILED DIRE CTLY BEFORE A.O. IN RESPONSE TO LETTER UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE A CT. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEFORE A.O. WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE A.O, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. FAIR FINVEST LTD., (2013) 357 I TR 146 (DEL.) (HC)IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : 8 ITA.NO.6546/DEL./2016 M/S. ZIRAKPUR ESTATE P. LTD., DELHI. 8. THE DECISION IN THIS CASE IS BASED ON THE PECU LIAR FACTS WHICH ATTRACT THE RATIO OF LOVELY EXPORTS (SU PRA). WHERE THE ASSESSEE ADDUCES EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE SH ARE APPLICATION MONIES, IT IS OPEN TO THE A.O. TO EXAMI NE IT AND REJECT IT ON TENABLE GROUNDS. IN CASE HE WISHES TO RELY ON THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES, SOME MEANI NGFUL ENQUIRY OUGHT TO BE CONDUCTED BY HIM TO ESTABLISH A LINK BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE ALLEGED HAWALA OPERATO RS, SUCH A LINK WAS SHOWN TO BE PRESENT IN THE CASE OF NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE (P) LTD., (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE. WE ARE THEREFORE NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD TO CONVEY THA T IN ALL CASES OF SHARE CAPITAL ADDED UNDER SECTION 68, THE RATIO OF LOVELY EXPORTS (SUPRA) IS ATTRACTED, IRRESPECTIVE O F THE FACTS, EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 7.1. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT APPEAL IS FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND THE LD. CIT(A) ASKED TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS O F THESE COMPANIES IN OCTOBER, 2016. THEREFORE, IT WAS PRACT ICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTOR S OF SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES WHEN THE SHARES HAVE ALREADY BEEN BOUGHT BACK. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VICTOR ELECTRODES LTD., (2010) 329 ITR 271 (DEL.) (HC). 9 ITA.NO.6546/DEL./2016 M/S. ZIRAKPUR ESTATE P. LTD., DELHI. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE ORDE R OF ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. SBS PROPERTIES AND FINVEST P. LTD., IN ITA.NO.378/2008 DATED 30 TH MAY, 2016. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSE SSEE PRODUCED ALL THE ABOVE EVIDENCES BEFORE A.O. AT ASSESSMENT STAGE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS, THEIR CREDITWORTH INESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. BOTH THE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND HAVE MADE INVESTMENT IN ASS ESSEE COMPANY THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. BOTH ARE REGISTERE D COMPANIES AND NO CASH WAS FOUND TO HAVE DEPOSITED I N THEIR ACCOUNTS BEFORE MAKING INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEE-COMPA NY. BOTH THE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE FILED THEIR CONFIRMATIONS BEFO RE A.O. TO CONFIRM THE INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEE-COMPANY, SUPPORT ED BY BOARD RESOLUTION AND SHARES WHICH HAVE ACTUALLY BEE N ALLOTTED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THEIR AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND REPORT OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, DELHI. IN THE CASE OF M/S. AVAIL FINANCIAL SERVICES P. LTD., THE A.O. EVEN CALLED FOR INFORMAT ION UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT AND THE SUBSCRIBER C OMPANY 10 ITA.NO.6546/DEL./2016 M/S. ZIRAKPUR ESTATE P. LTD., DELHI. CONFIRMED MAKING INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEE-COMPANY SUP PORTED BY ALL THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW MERE LY GOING THROUGH THE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION WING PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THE LD. CIT(A) AL SO WANTED TO VERIFY FROM THE A.O. AT APPELLATE STAGE WHETHER THE SE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED AT ASSESSMENT STAGE AFTER VERIFYING THE RECORD BUT THE A.O. DID NOT FILE ANY REMAND REPORT BEFORE LD. CIT(A). IF THE A.O. WANTED TO RELY ON TH E REPORT OF INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES, THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE MAD E SOME MEANINGFUL ENQUIRIES TO ESTABLISH THE LINK BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE ALLEGED ACCOMMODATION PROVIDER. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY LINK OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE ACCOMM ODATION PROVIDER, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION. THE A.O. DID NOT MAKE ANY EFFORT TO VERIFY THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FAIR FINVEST LTD., (SUPRA) SQUARELY APPLY T O THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT MAY BE NOTED HERE THAT THE A.O. AT THE ASS ESSMENT STAGE DID NOT ASK THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS O F BOTH THE COMPANIES FOR EXAMINATION AND ALSO DID NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO VERIFY THE FACTS FROM BOTH THE DIRECTORS OF THE AFO RESAID SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER SHE ET DATED 19 TH 11 ITA.NO.6546/DEL./2016 M/S. ZIRAKPUR ESTATE P. LTD., DELHI. OCTOBER, 2016 ASKED THE ASSESSEE WHETHER IT CAN PRO DUCE THE DIRECTORS OF BOTH THE ABOVE COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, RIGHTLY SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO LAPSE OF TIME IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF BOTH THE COMPANIES AND AS SHARES HAVE ALSO BEEN BOUGHT BACK. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER AP PEAL IS 2005-06. THEREFORE, AFTER LAPSE OF PERIOD OF 11 YEA RS, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THESE COMPANIES AT APPELLATE STAGE. THE HONBLE DELHI HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VICTOR ELECTRODES LTD., (SUPRA) HELD THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL OBLIGATION ON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SOME DIRECTORS OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEF ORE A.O. THEREFORE, FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THEM COULD NOT BY ITSELF HAVE JUSTIFIED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED DOCUMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WH ICH, THE A.O., IF HE SO WANTED, COULD HAVE SUMMONED THEM FOR VERIFICATION. 10. SINCE, IN THIS CASE, NO ATTEMPT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE FACTS FROM THE SUBSCRIBER COMPAN Y, HE HAS MERELY REJECTED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, NO FAULT COULD BE FOUND WITH THE EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE. 12 ITA.NO.6546/DEL./2016 M/S. ZIRAKPUR ESTATE P. LTD., DELHI. 11. IN THE CASE OF M/S. SBS PROPERTIES AND FINVEST P. LTD., (SUPRA), RELIED UPON BY THE LD. D.R., THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCHARGED THE BURDEN OF PROOF THA T LAY OUT ON IT, TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THESE CREDITS AS WE LL AS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION COMPANIES . 12. SINCE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS PROVE D THE IDENTITY OF BOTH THE SHARE APPLICANTS COMPANIES, TH EIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION , THEREFORE, THIS DECISION WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE C ASE. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I HOLD THAT S INCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLI CANTS, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER, THEREFORE, ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. I, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND D ELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS. 14. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF THE COMMISSION ADDITION OF RS.17,500 BECAUSE THE ADDITI ON OF RS.10 LAKHS WAS CONFIRMED. SINCE, I HAVE DELETED THE ADDI TION OF RS.10 LAKHS, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.17,500 IS ALSO DELETED. BOTH THESE GROUNDS OF APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT A RE ALLOWED. 13 ITA.NO.6546/DEL./2016 M/S. ZIRAKPUR ESTATE P. LTD., DELHI. 15. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE MATTER. SINCE BOTH THE MAIN ADDIT IONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DELETED, THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS LEFT WITH ACADEMIC DISCUSSION ONLY AND AS SUCH THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJ UDICATE UPON THIS ISSUE. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED 23 RD AUGUST, 2017 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT SMC BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE // ASST. REGISTRAR // ITAT : DELHI BENCHES : DELHI.