Zion Promoters & Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. Addl. CIT, Faridabad

ITA 679/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3134 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V K TULSIAN
• Keywords: Share purchase agreement; Opportunity of cross examination; Source of fund; Additional evidence; Third party statement
• Section: 133(6); 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ZION PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS (P) LTD., HR 77/1, PUL PAHLAD PUR, BADARPUR, NEW DELHI. VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- II, FARIDABAD. PAN : AAACZ2271K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. K. TULSIAN, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI AMIT JAIN, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 06-12-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-02-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2014 OF THE CIT(A)- 2, FARIDABAD RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER :- 1. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED BY UPHOLDI NG THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL FROM 13 SHAREHOLDERS OU T OF 15 AMOUNTING TO RS.2,77,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED, WHILE ADMITTEDLY O N RECORD NOT ONLY DETAILS AVAILABLE BUT REMAND REPORT ARE ALSO THERE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSION, EVIDENCE IN THE RIGHT PROSPECTIVE AND WITHOUT ANY A DVERSE MATERIAL. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.09.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.18,96,750/-. DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT 2 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE, DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, HAS RECEIVED SHARE CAPITA L OF RS.3,10,00,000/- AND SHARE PREMIUM OF RS.2,79,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ISS UE OF RS.31,00,000 SHARES FROM THE FOLLOWING 15 INVESTORS :- S.NO. NAME & ADDRESS OF SHAREHOLDER 1. AMARSARIA IMPEX LIMITED NOW K/A SHINE GOLD BUILD ERS LTD., E-10B, JAWAHAR PARK, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110092. 2. LOGITURA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 127, HARI NAGAR, ASHRA M, NEW DELHI - 14. 3. CHAHAT ESTATE AGENTS PVT. LTD., A - 20/102, SECTOR - 7, ROHINI, DELHI. 4. FABRIKA INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., 127, HARI NAGAR AS HRAM, NEW DELHI - 14. 5. SHIVALIK MYCO FOODS & INDUSTRIES LTD., 2822, GALI NO. - 18, CIRCULAR ROAD, KAILASH NAGAR, DELHI-31. 6. NAKODA JI BUILDWELL LTD., H-23, VIKAS MARG, LAXM I NAGAR, DELHI-110092. 7. S.S. FINVEST (INDIA) PVT. LTD., F-15, G.K. BHAGA T SHOPPING COMPLEX, FLAT NO.-4, 1 ST FLOOR, MANSAROVER GARDEN, NEW DELHI-15. 8. CHINU PRESS & PARKASHAN PVT. LTD., E-10B, JAWAHA R PARK LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI- 110092. 9. EXPRESS DSA SERVICES PVT. LTD., 402-404, 4 TH FLOOR, 73-74, SHEETLA HOUSE, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110017. 10. S.K. FASHIONS, 58, SHIMANT VIHAR, SECTOR-14, KA USHAMBI, GHAZIABAD. 11. FIRST HI FIN LTD., 325, VISHAL TOWER, DISTRICT CENTRE, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI- 58. 12. PRIDE REAL TECH PVT. LTD., 1/411, GALI RAJAN KA LAN, MORI GATE, DELHI- 110006. 13. SINGH CHANDER MARKETING PVT. LTD., S-561/222, B HAGWATHI COMPLEX, SHAKURPUR, NEW DELHI-110092. 14. TRUTH TRADE IMPEX PVT. LTD., 1/411, GALI RAJAN KALAN, MORI GATE, DELHI- 110006. 15. VARDHMAN SALES PVT. LTD., A-64, TEMPLE COLONY, SAMAYPUR, DELHI-110042. NOTE: S. K. FASHION IS NOT A COMPANY BUT A PROPRIET ORSHIP CONCERN. 4. VIDE LETTER DATED 14.03.2013 THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES/CONCERNS ALONG WITH PAN NUMB ERS. HOWEVER, IN THE SAID SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED TH E COMPLETE DETAILS OF THOSE COMPANIES SUCH AS INCOME-TAX RETURNS, LEDGER ACCOUN TS, BANK STATEMENTS, ETC. IN RESPECT OF ALL THESE COMPANIES/CONCERNS. TO VER IFY THE GENUINENESS OF THESE 3 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 15 INVESTOR COMPANIES/CONCERNS, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) ON 19.03.2013. ON 22.03.2013, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R GAVE COPIES OF THE LETTER U/S 133(6) TO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE WAS ASKED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTORS AND GENUINE NESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HE ALSO DIRECTED THE AR TO ENSURE THE PERSONAL ATTENDA NCE OF THE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF THESE 15 INVESTOR COMPANIES/CONCERNS BY 28.03.20 13. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT OUT OF 15 LE TTERS, 7 LETTERS ISSUED TO THE COMPANIES/CONCERNS AT SL.NO.3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13 AND 15 WERE RECEIVED BACK UN-SERVED. 6. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT REPLIES IN TWO CONCERNS NAMELY M/S EXPRESS DSA SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND M/S S.K. FASHIONS WERE R ECEIVED ENCLOSING COPY OF RETURN AND LEDGER ACCOUNT BUT NO BANK STATEMENT. I NFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE CASE OF M/S TRUTH TRADEX (P) LTD. AND M/S PRIDE REA LTECH (P) LTD. WERE IN THE FORM OF BANK STATEMENT AND LEDGER ACCOUNT. HOWEVER , NO INCOME-TAX RETURN WAS PROVIDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN THE REST OF THE CASES CONFIRMATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OR ON LETTER HEAD. NO INCOME TAX RETURN OR BANK STATE MENT WAS PROVIDED. HE CONDUCTED LOCAL ENQUIRIES OF THESE COMPANIES/CONCER NS. HOWEVER, IT WAS REPORTED THAT NONE OF THESE COMPANIES WERE FOUND TO BE AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN. HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE CONFIRMATIONS WERE NOT COMPLETE AS DESIRED VIDE LETTER U/S 133(6) WHICH COULD PROVE TH E IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND 4 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTORS. ON 28.03.2013, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE AND PERSONALLY PRESENT THE ATTENDANCE OF THESE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS/DIRECTORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, DOUBTED THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINES S OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES WHO HAVE INVESTED IN SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. N.R. PORTFOLIO P. LTD. VIDE ITA NO.134/2012 ORDER DATED 21.12.2012, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF T HE I.T. ACT, 1961 MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,10,00,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL TH E DETAILS GIVING THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY, COPY OF THE INCOME-TAX RETURN, AUDITORS REPORT, THE BALANCE SHEET, BANK STATEMENT, SHARE APPLICATION FO RM, BOARD RESOLUTION AND COPY OF PAN CARD ETC. IN CASE OF ALL THE 15 COMPANI ES/CONCERNS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT F ROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. AFTER CO NSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE REJOINDER OF THE ASSE SSEE TO SUCH REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED AN AMOUNT OF RS.33,00,000/- IN THE CASE OF EXPRESS DSA SERVICES PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.28,00,000/- AND IN THE CASE OF S.K. FASHIONS AMOUNTING TO RS.5,00,000/-. HE, HOWEVER, SUSTAINED THE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF 5 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 REMAINING COMPANIES. WHILE DOING SO, HE ANALYZED I NVESTMENT MADE BY EACH AND EVERY COMPANY WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- (A) AMARSARIA IMPEX LIMITED NOW K/A SHINE GOLD BUI LDERS LTD., E- 10B, JAWAHAR PARK, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110092 :- THE APPELLANT FILED COPY OF ITR, AUDITORS REPORT A ND BALANCE SHEET, BANK STATEMENT, SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BOAR D RESOLUTION AND COPY OF PAN CARD. HOWEVER, IN ADDITION TO THES E NEUTRAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PROD UCE THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF THE CO., DESPITE REPEATED OPPO RTUNITIES BOTH DURING ASSESSMENT AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS. AS REGAR DS WHEREABOUTS OF THE COMPANY, AS PER THE REMAND REPOR T DATED 04.08.2014, THE INSPECTOR ATTACHED WITH THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER COULD NOT LOCATE THE SHARE SUBSCRIBER AT BOTH THE ADDRESS ES GIVEN, NAMELY- 3603, FIRST FLOOR, CHAMBER 12, DARYA GANJ, DELHI-92 AND E-108, JAWAHAR PARK, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-92. IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. GLOBUS SECURITIES LTD. (SUPRA) AND CIT VS. N.R. PORTFOLIO (P) LTD. (SUPRA), THE IDENTITY OF AMARSARIA IMPEX LTD. COULD NOT BE E STABLISHED. SINCE THE BASIC TEST FOR ALLOWABILITY OF THE AMOUNT CONTRIBUTED BY AMARSARIA IMPEX LTD. BY WAY OF SHARE CAPITAL COULD NOT BE SATISFIED, I HOLD THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.25 LACS M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HERE SUSTAINED. (B) LOGITURA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 127, HARI NAGAR AS HRAM, NEW DELHI 14 :- THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED A COPY OF ITR, BANK STATEMEN T, BALANCE SHEET, SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BOARD RESOLUTION, ME MORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND PAN CARD. THE APPELLANT COULD PRODU CE THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF LOGITURA SOLUTIONS (P) LTD., W HOSE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED BY THE AO. THE APPELLANT COULD THUS ES TABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE SUBSCRIBER CO. ,BY PRODUCING THE DI RECTOR OF THE CO. IN ADDITION TO THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING REMAN D PROCEEDINGS. AS REGARDS ITS CREDITWORTHINESS, THE D IRECTOR OF THE CO., SHRI RAJ KUMAR, COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE O F INVESTMENT, WHEN HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED BY THE AO. FURTHER MORE, RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR WAS FILED BY THE CO . DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1344/- ONLY. BANK ACCOUNT REVEALED TH E FACT THAT ON THE DAY, AMOUNT WAS CONTRIBUTED BY WAY OF SHARE CAP ITAL, SMALLER AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED FROM CHAHAT ESTATES, FABRICA (INDIA) LTD, PRIDE REALTECH (PVT.) LTD WHO ARE ALSO CONTRIBUTORS TO THE SHARE 6 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 CAPITAL. A FURTHER ANALYSIS OF BALANCE SHEET OF THI S CO. REVEALED THAT OUT OF RESERVES OF RS.25,07,140/-, THE CO. HAD SHARE PREMIUM OF RS. 25 LACS. THUS THE CONTRIBUTION OF SHARE CAP ITAL OF THE APPELLANT CO. WAS HAVING A HUGE SHARE PREMIUM ACCOU NT. ALL THESE FACTS CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE CREDITWOR THINESS OF LOGITURA SOLUTIONS (P) LTD. COULD NOT BE PROVED AND HENCE TH E ADDITION OF RS. 25 LACS MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ACCOUNT IS HEREB Y SUSTAINED. (C) CHAHAT ESTATE AGENTS PVT. LTD. A-20-102, SECTOR -7, ROHINI, DELHI :- THE APPELLANT FILED COPY OF ITR, BANK STATEMENT, A UDITORS' REPORT AND BALANCE SHEET, SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK RES OLUTION, MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND PAN CARD. THOUGH THE CONFIRMATION WAS FILED, BY THE APPELLANT, REMAND RE PORT REVEALS THE FACT THAT THE INSPECTOR ATTACHED WITH THE AO COULD NOT LOCATE THE ASHRAM, NEW DELHI. FURTHERMORE, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF THE, SAID CO. DES PITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES. HENCE, THESE FACTS MAKE IT ABUNDANTL Y CLEAR THAT THE IDENTITY OF CHAHAT ESTATE AGENTS (P) LTD. COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT, BY MERELY FILING NEUTRAL DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCE. ADDITION OF RS. 25 LACS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT O F CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION OF THIS CO. IS THUS SUSTAINED. (D) FABRIKA INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. 127, HARI NAGAR ASHRAM, NEW DELHI-14 :- THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED COPY OF ITS, BANK STATEMENT , BALANCE SHEET, SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BOARD RESOLUTION, ME MORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND PAN CARD. BESIDES, CONFIRMATION WAS ALSO FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT COULD PRODUCE SHRI KUL DEEP THAKUR, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE CO., WHO CONFIRMED HAVI NG CONTRIBUTED 30 LACS TO THE, SHARE CAPITAL OF APPELLANT COMPANY. HOWEVER, COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT. F URTHERMORE, THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HIM SHOWED A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,03,855/- ONLY. HOW CAN A CO. WITH AN ANNUAL IN COME OF JUST RS. 1 LAC CONTRIBUTE 30 LACS TO THE SHARE CAPITAL O F AN UN-RELATED CO., THAT TOO AT A HUGE PREMIUM? ANOTHER NOTICEABLE FACTOR WAS THAT AS AGAINST SUBSCRIBED SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.74.5 0, LACS, THE SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED BY FABRICA WAS 5.53 CRORES, I.E. M ORE THAN 7 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED. ALL THE SE FACTS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF FABRICA INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. FOR ADVANCING RS.35 LACS CO ULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED AND HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS.35 LACS MA DE BY THE AO ON THIS ACCOUNT IS THUS UPHELD. 7 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 (E) SHIVALIK MYCO FOODS & INDUSTRIES LTD. 2822, GAL I NO.-18, CIRCULAR ROAD, KAILASH NAGAR, DELHI-31 :- THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED COPY OF ITR, BANK STATEMEN T, AUDITORS' REPORT, BALANCE, SHEET, BOARD RESOLUTION AND PAN CA RD. HOWEVER, ON ACCOUNT OF APPELLANT'S INABILITY TO PRO DUCE DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF THE SAID CO. AND INSP ECTOR'S REPORT THAT THE CO. COULD NOT BE LOCATED AT THE ADDRESS GI VEN I.E. GALI NO. 18, CIRCULAR ROAD, KAILASH NAGAR, DELHI, I HOLD THA T THE IDENTITY OF THE CO. IS NOT ESTABLISHED. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS.25 LACS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION BY THE SAID CO. IS HEREBY UPHELD. (F) NAKODA JI BUILDWELL LTD. H-23, VIKAS MARG, LAX MI NAGAR, DELHI- 110092. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED COPY OF ITR, BANK STATEMEN T, BALANCE SHEET, SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BOARD RESOLUTION AND PAN CARD. HOWEVER, ON ACCOUNT OF OF APPELLANT'S INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF THE SAID CO. BEFORE T HE AO AND INSPECTOR'S REPORT AS PER WHICH THE CO. WAS NOT LOC ATABLE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED BY THE APPELLANT I.E., H-23, VIKA S MARG, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI, I HOLD THAT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF NE UTRAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE SUB SCRIBER COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. THIS RESULTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.25 LACS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF HIS ALLEGED CAPIT AL CONTRIBUTION. (G) S.S. FINVEST (INDIA) PVT. LTD., F-15, G.K. BHAG AT SHOPPING COMPLEX, FLAT NO.-4, 1 ST FLOOR, MANSAROVER GARDEN, NEW DELH15 :- THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED COPY OF ITR, BANK STATEMEN T, BALANCE SHEET, SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BOARD RESOLUTION, ME MORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND PAN CARD, SHRI NAVED AHMED, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED. AS PER HIS STATEMENT, S.S. FINVEST (INDIA) PVT. LTD . HAD INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.25 LACS IN THE APPELLANT COMPANY. HOWE VER, HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT, WHICH LE ADS US TO AN EXAMINATION OF ITS CREDITWORTHINESS. AS PER THE RET URN, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, S.S. FINVEST (INDIA) PVT. LTD. HAD DECLARED A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.12,000/- ONLY ON GROS S RECEIPTS OF RS.7,90,835/-. IT IS UNIMAGINABLE AS TO HOW A COMPA NY WITH GROSS RECEIPTS OF LESS THAN 8 LACS WOULD MAKE A CAPITAL C ONTRIBUTION OF RS.25 LACS TO THE APPELLANT CO .. ANOTHER FEATURE W HICH IS PREVALENT IN APPELLANT'S BALANCE SHEET AS WELL AS OTHER BALAN CE SHEETS OF 8 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTORS, INCLUDING THE BALANCE SHEET O F S.S. FINVEST (INDIA) PVT. LTD., WAS THE HUGE AMOUNT OF SHARE PRE MIUM RECEIVED WHICH WAS APPEARING IN RESERVES AND SURPLUS. WHERE AS SUBSCRIBED SHARE CAPITAL WAS ONLY RS. 5 LACS, SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED WAS 6 TIMES THE SHARE CAPITAL, I.E., RS.30 LACS. ALL THESE FACTS PROVE BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF 5.5. FINVEST (INDIA) PVT. LTD. COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. FURTHE RMORE, SERIOUS QUESTIONS CAN BE RAISED REGARDING THE GENUINENESS O F TRANSACTION ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID FACTS. THE NET RESULT IS THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.25 LACS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION OF S.S. FINVEST (INDIA) PVT. LTD. IS HEREBY SUSTAINED FOR FAILURE T O PASS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SUBSCRIBERS TEST. (H) CHINU PRESS & PARKASHAN PVT. LTD. E-10B, JAWAHA R PARK, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110092 :- THE CO. CONTRIBUTED 25 LACS TO THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT PRODUCED A COPY OF ITR, BANK STATEMEN T, BALANCE SHEET, SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BOARD RESOLUTION AND PAN CARD DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH TH E IDENTITY AND LOCATE THE; CO., THE INSPECTOR ATTACHED WITH THE AO WAS DEPUTED. HOWEVER, AS PER HIS REPORT, THE CO. COULD NOT BE LO CATED EITHER AT THE OLD ADDRESS I.E. E-10, JAWAHAR PARK, LAXMI NAGA R, DELHI-92 OR AT THE NEW ONE GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT I.E. 36.03, F IRST FLOOR, CHAMBER NO.12, DARYA GANJ, DELHI-92. FURTHERMORE, THE DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF THE CO. COULD NOT BE PRODUCED DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I HOLD THAT THE IDENTITY OF CHINU PRESS AND PONKASHAN (P) LTD. COUL D NOT BE ESTABLISHED RESULTING IN UPHOLDING OF ADDITION OF R S.25 LACS MADE BY THE AO. (I) FIRST HI FIN LTD., 325, VISHAL TOWER, DISTRICT CENTRE, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-58 :- THE COMPANY CONTRIBUTED 28 LACS TO THE, SHARE CAPI TAL OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED COPY OF AUDITOR S REPORT, BALANCE SHEET, SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, BOARD RESOL UTION, MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND PAN CARD DURING APPELLATE/REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE INSPECTOR COULD NOT LOCATE THE CO. EITHER AT THE OLD ADDRESS I.E. 325, VISHAL TOWE R, DISTRICT CENTRE, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-58 OR AT THE NEW ADDRE SS I.E. 3 RD FLOOR, OLD RAJINDER NAGAR MARKET, DELHI-60. IN ADD ITION, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF THE CO. THUS, THESE FACTS MAKE IT EVIDENT THAT THE IDE NTITY OF FIRST HI FIN LTD. COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. THUS, ON THE BA SIS OF AFORESAID 9 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 FACTS, THE ADDITION OF RS.28 LACS MADE ON THIS ACCO UNT IS HEREBY UPHELD. (J) PRIDE REAL TECH PVT. LTD., 1/411, GALI RAJAN KA LAN, MORI GATE, DELHI-06 :- THIS COMPANY CONTRIBUTED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 13 LACS TO THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE APPELLANT. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL GAVE A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PRID E REALTECH (P) LTD. THESE INCLUDE BANK STATEMENT, AUDITORS' REPORT , BALANCE SHEET, SHARE APPLICATION FOR, MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIA TION, BOARD RESOLUTION AND PAN CARD. THE APPELLANT COULD PRODUC E SHRI JASBIR SINGH GROVER, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE CO . WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE APPELLANT CO, SHRI GROVER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD MADE INVESTMENT OF ONLY RS.3- 4 LACS WHICH IS MUCH LESS THAN WHAT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE APPELLA NT COMPANY. FURTHERMORE, BANK ACCOUNT REVEALED THAT THE DAY THE AMOUNT WAS GIVEN BY THE CO., SIMILAR AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS WERE R ECEIVED. SINCE THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT SUBMITTED, IT IS PRESU MED THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY IT. AS IS THE CASE WI TH THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND OTHER CAPITAL CONTRIBUTOR COMPANIES, TH E COMPANY RECEIVED A HUGE AMOUNT BY WAY OF SHARE PREMIUM. AS AGAINST SUBSCRIBED SHARE CAPITAL OF RS. 2 LACS, THE SHARE P REMIUM FIGURING UNDER THE HEAD 'RESERVES & SURPLUS' IS AS HIGH AS 9 0 LACS. THESE FACTS ESTABLISH THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT. FURTHERMORE, THE GENUINENESS OF TRAN SACTION IS HIGHLY DOUBTFUL, IN VIEW OF THE HUGE PREMIUM RECEIV ED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY FROM COMPANIES WHICH, IN TURN, AL SO, RECEIVED HUGE AMOUNTS BY WAY OF SHARE PREMIUM. THE QUESTION WHICH MAY ARISE IN ANY RATIONAL MIND IS - WHY A PERSON WILL P AY SUCH A HEFTY PREMIUM FOR INVESTING IN SUCH COMPANIES WHICH ARE N ON-DESCRIPT AND DO NOT HAVE ANY GREAT REPUTATION AND BUSINESS T O COMMAND SUCH A FAT PREMIUM. HENCE, I HOLD THAT THE AO RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF RS. 13 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CONTRIBUTION BY PRIDE REALTECH (P) LTD. (K) SINGH CHANDER MARKETTING PVT. LTD. S-561/222, B HAGWATHI COMPLEX, SHAKURPUR, NEW DELHI-110092 :- THIS COMPANY IS SAID TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED RS. 10 LA CS TO THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT GAVE A COPY OF BANK, STA TEMENT, SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BOARD RESOLUTION, MEMORANDUM OF A SSOCIATION, AND PAN CARD. SINCE THE INSPECTOR COULD NOT LOCATE THE COMPANY 10 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 AT THE ADDRESS 9IVEN BY THE APPELLANT AND THE APPEL LANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER/DIRECTOR OF THE CO., I HOLD THAT THE TEST OF ESTABLISHMENT OF IDENTITY OF SHARE SUBSCRIB ERS COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED RESULTING IN SUSTAINING OF ADDITION OF RS.L0 LACS. (L) TRUTH TRADEX PVT. LTD., 1/411, GALI RAJAN KALAN , MORI GATE, DELHI-110006 :- THE COMPANY IS SAID TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 7 LACS TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY BY WAY OF SHARE CAPITAL. T HE APPELLANT SUBMITTED COPY OF ITR, BANK STATEMENT, BALANCE SHEE T, AUDITORS REPORT, SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BOARD RESOLUTION, M EMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND PAN CARD DURING THE COURSE OF RE MAND PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT COULD ALSO PRODUCE SHRI KULDEEP THAKUR, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE CO. WHO CONFIRM ED HAVING MADE INVESTMENT BUT COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE SOUR CE OF SUCH INVESTMENT. SINCE THE APPELLANT SATISFIED THE 'IDEN TITY' TEST, IT WAS EXAMINED WHETHER THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHARE SUBS CRIBED COULD BE ESTABLISHED. FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE RETURN OF INC OME WAS PERUSED AS PER WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD DECLARED AN INCOME O F RS.8000 ONLY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. NO DETAILS OF INVENTORIES/STOCK WERE PROVIDED BY THE CO. ANOTHER FEATURE RUNNING THROUGH ALL THE BALANCE SHEETS EXAMINED, I.E. THE H UGE SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED BY VARIOUS COMPANIES WAS ALSO EVID ENT HERE. ALL THESE FACTS LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CREDITWORTH INESS OF SHARE SUBSCRIBER AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. HENCE, THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE B Y THE AO. (M) VARDHAMAN SALES PVT. LTD., A-64, TEMPLE COLONY, SAMAYPUR, DELHI-110042 :- AS PER THE APPELLANT, THE COMPANY CONTRIBUTED RS. 25 LACS TO THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CASE, EVEN THE CONFIRMATION COULD NOT BE RECEIVED FROM THE COMPANY AS LETTER SE NT TO THE COMPANY CAME BACK UN-DELIVERED. APART FROM THIS, TH E APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SAID COMPANY. HENCE, ON ACC OUNT OF FAILURE OF TESTS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 68, THE ADDITION OF R S. 25 LACS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION BY VARDHMAN SALE S (P) LTD. IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 11 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 8. REJECTING THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AS SESSEE AND RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADD ITION OF RS.2.77 CRORES IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE 13 COMPANIES. 9. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 10. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FOLLOWING FIVE CA SES, THE DIRECTORS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND IN THEIR STATEMENTS RECORDED HAVE C ONFIRMED TO HAVE INVESTED THE AMOUNT IN THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY :- SL. NO. NAME OF THE PERSON COMPANY 1. JASBIR SINGH GROVER PRIDE REAL TECH (P) LTD. 2. KULDEEP THAKUR TRUTH TRADEX (P) LTD. 3. KULDEEP THAKUR FABRIKA INDUSTRIES 4. NAVED AHMAD S.S. FINVEST INDIA (P) LTD. 5. RAJ KUMAR LOGITURA SOLUTIONS (P) LTD. 11. REFERRING TO THE FOLLOWING TABLE, HE DREW THE A TTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE CAPITAL OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES, THE DETAILS OF W HICH ARE AS UNDER :- NAME OF INVESTOR CAPITAL OF INVESTOR COMPANY TOTAL INVESTMENT CHAHAT ESTATE AGENTS PVT. LTD. 1.18 CRORES 90.75 LA KHS INCLUSIVE OF PRESENT INVESTMENT TRUTH TRADE IMPEX PVT. LTD. 1.75 CRORES 1.37 CRORES INCLUSIVE OF PRESENT INVESTMENT LOGITURA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 1.05 CRORES 84.20 LAKH S INCLUSIVE OF PRESENT INVESTMENT FEBRICA INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. 6.41 CRORES 5.65 CRORES INCLUSIVE OF PRESENT INVESTMENT SHIVALIK MYCO FOODS & INDUSTRIES LTD. 5 CRORES 4.26 CRORES INCLUSIVE OF PRESENT INVESTMENT 12 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 NAKODA JI BUILDWELL LTD. 24.6 CRORES 16.37 CRORES I NCLUSIVE OF PRESENT INVESTMENT S.S. FINVESTMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 1.10 CRORES 1.0 2 CRORES INCLUSIVE OF PRESENT INVESTMENT CHINU PRESS & PARKASHAN PVT. LTD. 9.91 CRORES 8.24 CRORE INCLUSIVE OF PRESENT INVESTMENT FIRST HI FIN LTD. 12.25 CRORES 12.07 CRORES INCLUS IVE OF PRESENT INVESTMENT PRIDE REAL TECH PVT. LTD. 1.22 CRORES 99.3 LAKSH I NCLUSIVE OF PRESENT INVESTMENT 12. SO FAR AS THE OTHER COMPANIES/CONCERNS ARE CONC ERNED, HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THEIR RESPECTIVE BALANCE SHEETS AND SUBMITTED THAT THEY HAVE ADEQUATE CAPITAL AND FREE RESERVES TO INVEST I N THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 13. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS/DETAILS DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES AND GENU INENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE U/S 68 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT IN CERTAIN CASES WHERE THE DIRECTORS HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE INVESTOR COMPANIES SHOW VERY MEAGER INCOME AND THEREFORE THE COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE ANY CAPACITY TO INVEST AND IN CERTAIN CASES THE DIRECTORS COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE BALANCE SHEETS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMPANIES SHOW HUGE CAPITAL AND FREE RESERVE AND THE DIRECTORS HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE 13 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND CONFIRMED TO HAVE INVESTED I N THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATIN G THE FACTS PROPERLY COULD NOT HAVE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION. REFERRING TO VARI OUS DECISIONS, HE SUBMITTED THAT MEAGER INCOME/LOW INCOME CANNOT BE A GROUND TO DOUBT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF A COMPANY/CONCERN IF IT HAS OTH ERWISE ADEQUATE CAPITAL. 14. SO FAR AS THE REMAINING COMPANIES ARE CONCERNED , HE SUBMITTED THAT FULL DETAILS WERE FILED ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY AND CR EDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. MER ELY BECAUSE THE DIRECTORS OF THOSE COMPANIES DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE SAME CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR MAKING ADDITION. FOR THE ABOVE PROPOS ITION, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VICTOR ELECTRODES REPORTED IN 329 ITR 271 WHEREIN I T HAS BEEN HELD THAT NON- PRODUCTION OF THE PARTIES COULD NOT BE A GROUND FOR MAKING ADDITION WHEN ALL THE EVIDENCES WERE FILED AND NO ADVERSE MATERIAL WAS BR OUGHT ON RECORD. HE ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS. 15. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAMDHENU STEELS REPORTED IN 206 TAXMAN 254, HE SUBM ITTED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT MEREL Y NON-SERVICE/APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE MONEY BELONGED TO THE COMPANY PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ENTIRE DETAILS WERE F ILED AND NO ADVERSE MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN T HE ABOVE DECISION HAS 14 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF OASIS HOSPITALITY REPORTED IN 333 ITR 119, LOVELY EXPORT S (SC), SIGNATURE HOTELS, SARTHAK SECURITIES REPORTED IN 329 ITR 110 AND STIF F STOCK BROKERS REPORTED IN 325 ITR 285. 16. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. AJNARA INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN 19 TAXMANN.C OM 95 IN ITA NO.3612/2010, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PRODUCED PAN OR ITRS OF ALL SHARE APPLICANTS AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS PAID BY ACCOUNT PAYEE C HEQUE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CREATIVE WORLD TELEFILMS LTD., HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE FOUND OUT DETAILS OF SHAREHOLDER THROUGH PAN CARDS, BANK ACCOUNT, ETC. SO AS TO REACH THEM BECAUSE ALL RELEVANT DETAILS AND PARTICULARS W ERE GIVEN BY ASSESSEE TO ASSESSING OFFICER. REFERRING TO THE ABOVE DECISION , HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM SHAREHOLDERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED THE DETAILS OF THE NAME AND A DDRESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, THEIR PAN, GIR NUMBERS, CHEQUE NUMBER, NAME OF THE BANK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOTHING EXCEPT ISSUE SUMMONS WHICH WERE RETURNED WITH THE REMARK NOT TRACEABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HA VE FOUND OUT THEIR DETAILS 15 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 THROUGH PAN CARDS, BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS OR FROM THE BANKER SO AS TO REACH THE SHAREHOLDER SINCE ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL DETAILS AND PARTICULARS WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 18. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DWARKADHEESH INVESTMENT REPORTED IN 330 ITR 298, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD TH AT IF THE COMPANY ESTABLISHES THE IDENTITY OF THE SUBSCRIBER, THEN BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE DEPARTMENT UNLESS AND UNTIL ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT FUNDING WAS DONE BY THE COMPANY. 18.1 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. PARDISE IN LAND SHIPPING PVT. LTD. VI DE ORDER DATED 30.11.2017, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID D ECISION, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O RISSA CORPORATION REPORTED IN 159 ITR 78, HELD THAT SHARE CAPITAL CANNOT BE TR EATED AS BOGUS. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF N.C. CABLES REPORTED IN 391 ITR 11, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'B LE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD IF ENTIRE DETAILS WERE FILED NO A DDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT WHEN T HE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS, ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MAD E. HE SUBMITTED THAT AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE VARIOUS DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE 16 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 BASIS OF WHICH NOTICES U/S 133(6) WERE ISSUED. OUT OF 15 COMPANIES, 6 WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REMAININ G DETAILS ALONG WITH CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO ADMI TTED SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A SSESSING OFFICER. DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE D IRECTORS OF SOME OF THESE COMPANIES WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED. THEY HAV E CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THEY HAVE MADE INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE REMAINING DIRECTORS COULD NOT APPEAR BECAUSE OF THEIR HEALTH OR PERSONA L PROBLEM. HE SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE REQUEST TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE S UMMONS U/S 131, NO SUCH SUMMONS WERE ISSUED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED T HEIR AFFIDAVITS WHICH ARE ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCES FILED AT ANY STAGE. LD. CIT(A) MISINTERPRETED THE FINANCIAL STA TEMENTS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE COMPANIES WHICH IS NOT PROPER. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBM ITTED THAT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE FULLY DELETED . 19. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF ROCK FORT METAL & MINERALS LTD. REPORTED IN (2011) 198 TAXMAN 497, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HEL D THAT WHERE THE APPELLANT COMPANY SUBMITTED LIST OF ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS GIVI NG FULL NAME, ADDRESSES, DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE BY CHEQUE (CHEQUE NO., AND NAME OF BANK ALSO), 17 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 CONFIRMATIONS FROM ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS GIVING COMP LETE PARTICULARS IN THE FORM OF ADDRESS, CHEQUE NUMBERS AND THE NAME OF BANK , P AN AND PLACE OF ASSESSMENT, COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS SHOWING DEPOS IT OF ALL THESE RECEIPTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS PRIMARY ONUS AS PER LAW OF PROVING THE IDENTITY OF ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS. IT WAS FOR THE AO TO PUT FORTH SO ME ADVERSE MATERIAL IN CASE HE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT SUCH MATERIAL ON TOP OF THE TABLE WITH AN OPPORTUNI TY OF REBUTTAL AND/ OR CROSS EXAMINATION TO THE OPPOSITE PARTY. THE COURT RELIE D ON THE RULING IN LOVELY EXPORTS CASE (SC). 20. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF JAIPUR BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHARTI SYNTEX LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED IN (2011) 137 ITJ 82, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE JAIPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISI ON HAS HELD THAT WHERE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BY CHEQUE, THE CORPORATE SHAR E APPLICANTS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX, CONFIRMATIONS WITH COPIES OF SHARE CERTIFICATE S, BANK STATEMENT, MEMORANDUM OF ARTICLES, COPY OF SHARE APPLICATION M ONEY, AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND P & L A/C ARE FILED, THE ASSESSEE HAS DIS CHARGED ITS ONUS .EVEN IF NO CROSS - EXAMINATION WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE, AD VERSE INFERENCE CAN NOT BE DRAWN. 21. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. N.C. CABLES REPORTED IN 391 ITR 11, HE S UBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES DOCUMENTS TO EVIDENCE GENUINENES S OF TRANSACTION AND 18 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 IDENTIFY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES, NO AD DITION CAN BE MADE U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT ADEQUATE AND PROPER ENQUIRY INTO MATERIALS WHILE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE IT IS NEITHER A CASE OF ENQUIRY NOR A CASE OF SEARCH BUT IS A REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ADEQUATE DETAILS EVIDENCING THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINES S OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. 22. SO FAR AS RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF NOVA PRO MOTER (SUPRA) AND N.R. PORTFOLIO (SUPRA) ARE CONCERNED, HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE DECISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND ARE COMPLETELY DISTINGUISHABLE AS PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT BASED UPON ANY SEARCH, SURVEY OR ANY THIRD PARTY STATEMENT OR ADVERSE MATERIAL. 23. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS MISERABLY FAILED THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 I.E. IDENTITY AND CREDITW ORTHINESS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANIES, LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION BY D OUBTING THEIR IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS. SO FAR AS COMPAN IES/CONCERNS WHOSE DIRECTORS WERE PRESENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ARE CONCERNED, HE SUBMITTED THAT THOSE DIR ECTORS COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE 19 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENTS. FURTHER, THE COMPANIES ARE HAVING MEAGER INCOME AS PER THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS FILED. THEREFORE, LD . CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,77,00,000/- OUT OF RS.3,10,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF NIPUR BUILDERS REPORTED IN 358 ITR 40, NOVA PROMOTER REPORTED IN 342 ITR 169 A ND N.R. PORTFOLIO REPORTED IN 204 ITR 45. 24. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A) AND PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED TH E VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY BOTH THE SIDES. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE IN THE INS TANT CASE HAS RECEIVED SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.31,00,000/- SHARE PREMIUM OF RS.2,79, 00,000/- FROM 15 COMPANIES/CONCERNS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE ALREAD Y GIVEN IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,10,00,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) FILED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, WHICH WERE ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER OB TAINING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED FROM EXPRESS DSA SERVICES PVT. LTD . AT RS.28,00,000/- AND 20 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 S.K. FASHIONS AT RS.5,00,000/- AND SUSTAINED ADDITI ON OF RS.2,79,00,000/- IN THE CASE OF REMAINING 13 COMPANIES FOR WHICH THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 25. SO FAR AS THE AMOUNT DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AMOUNTING TO RS.33,00,000/- IN RESPECT OF THE TWO COMPANIES ARE CONCERNED, THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, WE A RE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE SAME. 26. NOW, IN RESPECT OF THE 13 COMPANIES AMOUNTING T O RS.2,79,00,000/- IS CONCERNED, IN OUR OPINION, THE SAME CAN BE CATEGORI ZED INTO TWO PARTS I.E. WHERE THE DIRECTORS HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED AND THE COMPANIES WHERE THE DIRECTORS / PRINCIPAL OFFICER DID NOT APPEAR BUT AFFIDAVITS FILED. 27. WE FIND THE DIRECTOR OF THE FOLLOWING FIVE COMP ANIES APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDE D. 28. SO FAR AS PRIDE REAL TECH PVT. LTD. IS CONCERNE D, WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTEDLY FILED ALL THE EVIDENCES AND THE STATEMEN T OF THE DIRECTORS SHRI JASBIR SINGH GROVER WAS RECORDED. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAIL S FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THE COMPANY HAS PAID UP CAPITAL OF RS.2,00, 000/- AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY PENDING FOR ALLOTMENT AT RS.30,35,000/-. FUR THER, THE RESERVES AND SURPLUS AND SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.90,00,000 /- HAS BEEN SHOWN. THEREFORE, TOTAL SOURCE OF FUND WAS RS.1,22,35,000/ - OUT OF WHICH COMPANY 21 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 INVESTED RS.13 LAKHS IN THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS REGARDING THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE AMOUNT IN VESTED BY PRIDE REAL TECH PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.13,00,000/- IS THEREFORE ACCEPTED. 29. SO FAR AS INVESTMENT OF RS.7,00,000/- BY TRUTH TRADEX IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY W AS RECORDED. WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT TH E DIRECTOR COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN MEAGER INCOME. A PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSE SSEE SHOWS THAT THE INVESTOR COMPANY HAS PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.2,00,000/- AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY PENDING ALLOTMENT OF RS.75,50,000/-. SIMILARLY, AS SESSEE HAS SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.90,00,000/- UNDER THE HEAD RESERVES OR SURPLU S. THUS, THE TOTAL SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM THROUGH RESERVES AMOUNTIN G TO RS.1,67,50,000/-. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT SHARE C APITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM THROUGH RESERVES IN ITS BALANCE SHEET, MERELY BECAU SE THE COMPANY HAS SHOWN MEAGER INCOME, THE SAME CANNOT BE A GROUND TO DISBE LIEVE THE CAPACITY TO INVEST AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,00,000/- IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE, THEREFORE, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO ALLOW THE INVESTMENT OF RS.7,00,000/- BY TRUTH TRADEX (P) LTD .. 22 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 30. SO FAR AS FABRIKA INDUSTRIES IS CONCERNED, WE F IND THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE SAID COMPANY APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED TO HAVE MADE TH E INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE O N THE GROUND THAT SUCH DIRECTOR COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. A PERU SAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ABOVE COMPANY, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 117 AND 119 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWS THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL, SHARE PREMIUM AN D RESERVES AND SURPLUS SHOW AN AMOUNT OF RS.1.42 CRORES WHICH WAS STANDING AT RS.1.14 CRORES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. THEREFORE, THE INVESTOR COM PANY HAS SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SINCE THE DIRE CTOR OF ASSESSEE COMPANY APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE RELEV ANT DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND THE COMPANY HAS A DEQUATE SHARE CAPITAL AND FREE RESERVES, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A), IN OUR OP INION, IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE AMOUNT INVESTED BY THE ABOVE COMPANY TOTALING TO RS.30,00,000/-. WE, THEREFORE, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE INVESTMENT OF RS.30,00,000/- BY FABRIKA INDUSTRIES AS GENUINE. 31. SO FAR AS AMOUNT INVESTED BY S.S. FINVEST INDIA (P) LTD. IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND CONFIRMED THE INVESTM ENT OF RS.25,00,000/-. THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 23 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 168 OF THE PAPER BOOK, SHOWS THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL AT RS.40,00,000/- AND SHARE PREMIUM UNDER THE HEAD RESERVES AND SURPLUS AT RS.3 0,00,000/- AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR WHICH HAVE GONE UP TO 1,10,00,000/- AS AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR ENDING ON 31.03.2010. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE TH E ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN MEAGER INCOME OF RS12,000/- DURING THE YEAR ON A GR OSS RECEIPT ABOUT 8,00,000/-, THE SAME CANNOT BE A GROUND TO DISBELIE VE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ABOVE COMPANY WHEN THE COMPANY HAD SUFFICIENT CAPIT AL AND FREE RESERVES. THE RELEVANT DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT/REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND THE DIRECTOR OF T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE, THEREFO RE, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCE PT THE INVESTMENT OF RS.25,00,000/- IN THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y. 32. NOW COMING TO THE NEXT COMPANY I.E. LOGITURA SO LUTIONS (P) LTD. WHICH HAS INVESTED RS.25,00,000/- IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY , WE FIND THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY APPEARED DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. A PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANY, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PA GE 99 OF THE PAPER BOOK, SHOWS THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES STOOD AT RS.55,26,240/- AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR WHICH HAS GONE UP TO RS.1,05, 57,140/- AT THE END OF THE YEAR. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE THE COMPANY HAS DE CLARED MEAGER INCOME, THE SAME, IN OUR OPINION, CANNOT BE A GROUND TO DISBELI EVE THE INVESTMENT OF 24 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 RS.25,00,000/- TOWARDS SHARES IN THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE INVESTMENT IN THE SHARE OF TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY BY THE ABOVE FIVE COMPANIES WHOSE DIRECTORS APPEARED BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED AND FULL DETAILS WERE FILED SUBSTANTIATING THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTOR C OMPANIES AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, CANNOT BE DOUBTED MERELY BECAU SE COMPANIES HAVE MEAGER INCOME OR THAT THE DIRECTORS COULD NOT CATEGORICALL Y ANSWER THE QUESTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SAME IN OUR OPINION UNDER T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE CANNOT BE A GROUND TO DISBELIEVE THE IN VESTMENT. THUS, THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF THE ABOV E FIVE COMPANIES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,00,00,000/- IS DELETED. 33. NOW COMING TO THE REMAINING COMPANIES ARE CONCE RNED, WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION BASICALLY ON THE GROU ND THAT ALTHOUGH FULL DETAILS WERE FILED HOWEVER, THE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF THE A BOVE COMPANIES COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECORDING THEIR STATEMENTS AND THE COMPANIES ARE SHOWING MEAGER INCOME. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, INCOME IN CASE OF A CONCERN CANNOT BE THE BASIS TO DISBELIEVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS IF IT HAS OTHERWISE SUFFICIENT CAPITAL AND FREE RESERVES. FR OM VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES, HOWEVER, THEIR AFFIDAVITS HAVE BEE N FILED AS MENTIONED EARLIER DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FI LED THE COPY OF ALLOTMENT OF 25 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 SHARES IN FORM-2, RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION, MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND PAN CARD, ITR, BANK S TATEMENT ETC TO JUSTIFY THEIR IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS. THE COPY OF F ILING OF FORM NO.2 SHOWING RETURN OF ALLOTMENT ON 25.06.2009 AND 31.03.2010 WI TH THE MINISTRY OF COMPANY AFFAIRS WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVITS IN THE CASE OF FOLLOWING COMPANIES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED TO BE FALSE OR UNTRUE :- 1. CHINU PRESS AND PRAKASHAN PVT. LTD. 2. AMARSARIA IMPEX LTD. 3. SHIVALIK MYCO FOOD AND INDUSTRIES LTD. 4. NAKODA JI BUILDWELL LTD. 5. SINGH CHANDER MARKETING PVT. LTD. 6. VARDMAN SALES PVT. LTD. 7. FIRST HI FIN LTD. 34. FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WE F IND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ISSUE SUMMONS U/S 131 DESPITE CLEAR LY BEING ASKED BY THE COMPANY AT THE VERY INITIAL STAGE AND ONLY NOTICES U/S 133(6) WERE ISSUED TO THE INVESTING COMPANIES WHICH WERE COMPLIED BY SOME OF THESE COMPANIES. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT MERE NON-PRODUCTION OF THE DIRECTOR COULD NOT BE A GROUND FOR MAKING ADDIT ION WHEN ALL THE EVIDENCES WERE FILED AND IF THERE IS NO ALLEGATION/ADVERSE MA TERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD CONTRARY TO EVIDENCES FILED. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONDUCTED THE PRELIMINARILY ENQUIRY SUCH AS VERIFICATION OF THE PAN NUMBER FROM THE DATA BANK OF THE DEPARTMENT AND NOT VERIFIED FROM THE 26 ITA NO.679/DEL/2015 WEBSITE OF THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS WHICH HE SHOULD HAVE DONE IN THIS CASE AT THE INITIAL STAGE AND SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY INTERPRETED THE FINANCIALS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES, THEREFORE, CO NSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, W E RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY TH E VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATION. WHILE DOING SO, HE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VICTOR ELECTRODE (SUPRA). 35. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28-02-2018. SUJEET COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT 4) THE CIT(A) 5) THE DR, I.T.A.T., NEW DELHI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI