INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR V. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

ITA 691/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4939 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BK GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: VEDANT AGARWAL DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Bogus Share capital; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of cross examination; Source of fund; Additional evidence; Tangible material; Accommodation entries; Assessment record; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133A; 133(6); 143(1); 143(2); 48; 13; 22; 131; 68

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH B , JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE : SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 691/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE ITO WARD- 4 (2) JAIPUR CUKE VS. M/S.SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD. F-42, SHRI NATH TOWER, CENTRAL SPINE, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AANCS 1102 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI B.K. GUPTA, CIT-DR FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VEDANT AGARWAL, ADVOCATE LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 06/02/2020 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 /02/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 27-06-2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,98,00,000/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 196 1 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTROD UCED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,98,00,000/- IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 2 THOROUGH THE RACKET OF ENTRY PROVIDER OPERATING IN KOLKATA, INFORMATION OF WHICH WAS PROVIDED BY THE INVESTIGAT ION WING, KOLKATA. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE BU SINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND DEVELOPERS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SHARE CAPITAL OF RS. 3,98,00,000/- FROM M/ S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD.. THE AO QUESTIONED THE GENUINENESS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE SAID AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AT A PREMIUM OF RS.790/- PER SHARE OF RS. 10/- EACH. THE AO PROPOSED TO MAKE THE ADDITIO N U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS THAT SEARCH AND SURVEY ACTION WAS CARR IED OUT IN THE CASE OF ONE SHRI ANAND SHARMA, KOLKATA ON 02-07-2013 WHEREB Y VARIOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED AND IMPOUNDED. THE SAID SEARCH ACTION REVEALED AND PROVED THAT SHRI ANANAD SHARMA THROUGH A WEB OF COMPANIES RUN AND OPERATED BY HIM IS ENGAGED IN PRO VIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF VARIOUS NATURES LIKE BOGUS UNSECURED LOANS, BOGUS SHARE APPLICATION AND BOGUS SALES ETC. THE AO REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA RECORDED BY THE INVE STIGATION WING, KOLKATA, IN THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION CARRIED O UT ON 02-07-2013 AND OBSERVED THAT SHRI ANAND SHARMA IN HIS STATEMENT AD MITTED TO HAVE ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 3 ENGAGED IN PROVIDING THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR COMMISSION. THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISO RY PVT. LTD. IS ONE OF THE COMPANIES OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. BASED O N THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WIN G, KOLKATA, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 3.98 CR ORES AND TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE CHALL ENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD PRODUCED ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO TO PROVE BEYOND DOUBT THE IDE NTITY OF M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD., CREDITWORTHINESS OF TH E SAID COMPANY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE REFER RED TO THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO WHICH INCLUDED PAN CARD OF M /S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD., COPY OF COMPANYS MASTER DATA G ENERATED FROM MCA WEBSITE SHOWING THE STATUS OF THE COMPANY AS AC TIVE, COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2013-14 AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) IN T HE CASE OF M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. BY ITO, WARD- 1(1), KOL KATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THUS THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINE D THAT WHILE PASSING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09, THE AO ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 4 EXAMINED THE SOURCE OF FUNDS BEING SHARE CAPITAL RE CEIVED BY M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. FROM ITS SHAREHOLDERS A ND FOUND TO BE GENUINE. ONCE THE SAID COMPANY WAS HAVING THE SUFFI CIENT FUNDS AND RECEIVED THE FUNDS ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL THEN THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE SAID COMPANY IN THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE C ANNOT BE DOUBTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO REFERRED TO VARIOUS DECISIONS AS WELL AS DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER GOING THROUGH T HE RECORD AND MATERIAL NOTED THAT SHRI ANAND SHARMA, IN HIS STATE MENT HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE NAME OF M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. AS A C OMPANY OR CONCERN CONTROLLED BY HIM FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTR IES. THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO FURNISH CERTAIN INFORMATION WHIC H INCLUDES THE COPIES OF STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA AND OTHER SEIZED MATERIALS AS WELL AS SOURCE OF LIST OF THE COMPANIES AS REFERRED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING THE CONCERNS CONTROLLED AND MANAGER BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA. SINCE THE AO DID NOT RESPOND TO THESE QUERIES RAISE D BY THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE A PPEAL ON THE BASIS OF RECORD AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. THUS THE LD. CIT(A) HA S DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT RE FERRED TO ANY SEIZED ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 5 MATERIALS OR ANY OTHER MATERIALS WHICH COULD PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE FORM OF S HARE APPLICATION MONEY. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A), THE REVENUE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 2.2 BEFORE US, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE ISSUED THE SHARES OF RS. 10/- EACH AT A PREMIUM OF RS. 790/- P ER SHARE WITHOUT JUSTIFYING THE VALUE OF ITS SHARES TO CARRY SUCH A HIGH PREMIUM. THE LD. DR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY CONFRONTED WITH THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION IN THE CASE OF M/S. ABHIS HEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD., BY THE DCIT (INV.) AND ALSO SHOWN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA IN WHICH ALL THE STATEMENTS WERE NARRATED BY THE IN VESTIGATION WING. THUS THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY BY ISSUING S HOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY SHARE CAPITAL OF RS. 3.98 CRORES INTRODUCED DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM THE SAID COMPANY MAY NOT BE TREA TED AS NON-GENUINE AS THE SAME IS ONLY DIVERSION OF PROFIT TO EVADE TH E TAX LIABILITY. THE LD. DR HAS REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHAR MA AND SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS EXPLAINED THE MODUS OPERANDI OF CREATIN G THE PAPER COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE LD. DR THUS CONTENDED THAT M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. WAS ALSO CONTROLLED AND ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 6 MANAGED BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA AS HIS BROTHER, THE DI RECTOR OF THE SAID COMPANY. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LIST OF COMP ANIES AS REPRODUCED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TAKEN BY THE I NVESTIGATION WING, KOLKATA FROM THE SYSTEM OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA, MAINT AINED IN TALLY. THEREFORE, THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT M/S. ABHISHEK AD VISORY PVT. LTD. IS ONE OF THE COMPANIES MANAGED AND CONTROLLED BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA OTHERWISE HOW THE NAME OF THE SAID COMPANY IS THE P ART OF THE LIST MAINTAINED BY HIM IN HIS COMPUTER. THE LD. DR FURTH ER CONTENDED THAT EVEN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THESE COMPANIES WER E ALSO PART OF HIS SYSTEM WHICH SHOWS THAT HE WAS MANAGING AND CONTROL LING ALL THESE COMPANIES FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE LD. DR HAS REFERRED TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIE S AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REAL ESTATE BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE SE COMPANIES EXCEPT RECEIVING THE MONEY IN THE SHAPE OF SHARE CAPITAL A ND INVESTING THE SAME AS PROVIDING THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE GARB OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES OR LOANS PROVIDED TO VARIOUS PERSONS. THE LD . DR HAS FURTHER REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ISSUED N OTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. BUT THE SAI D LETTER WAS RECEIVED ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 7 BACK UNSERVED WITH THE REMARKS THAT NO SUCH COMPA NY ON THIS ADDRESS. THE AO THEN ISSUED A COMMISSION TO DDIT (INV.), KOL KATA WITH THE REQUEST TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY AND GIVE AN ENQUIRY R EPORT ON THE ISSUE. THE DDIT (INV.), KOLKATA THEN SENT A REPORT DATED 25/2 6-03-2015 WHICH SHOWS THAT THE INFORMATION WAS SOUGHT TO BE GATHERE D FROM SHRI ANAND SHARMA BY RECORDING HIS STATEMENT FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE FACT OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. HOWEVER, DESPITE S UMMON U/S 131 (1) OF THE ACT TO SHRI ANAND SHARMA AT THE ADDRESS AVAI LABLE WITH THIS OFFICE, HE DID NOT TURN UP. THE AO AFTER TAKING THESE STEPS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTOR OF THE INVESTOR COMPANY FOR EX AMINATION. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTOR THE INVESTO R COMPANY. THUS ALL THESE EXERCISES AND INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWO RTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AS REQUIRED U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO REFERRED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS WHIC H HAVE BEEN FILED FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE AND SUBMITTED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOTHING BUT THE RETURNS FILED BY M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. WITH R.O.C. WHICH DISCLOSES THE FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 8 ISSUE. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID COMPANY I S NOW OWNED BY THREE GROUP COMPANIES OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY (1) M/S. SKY WAY COLONIZERS PVT.LTD. (2) SKYWAY ISPAT PVT.LTD AND (3) SKYWAY TO WNSHIP PVT. LTD.. THEREFORE, THIS COMPANY IS ONE OF THE GROUP COMPANI ES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH ALL THE RE QUISITE DETAILS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE LD. DR FUR THER CONTENDED THAT THE SHARES OF M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. WERE PUR CHASED BY THE GROUP CONCERNS FROM THE ASSESSEE AT LESS THAN RS. 2/- PER SHARE WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE ISSUED THE SHARES AT HUGE PREMIUM OF RS. 7 90/- PER SHARE . THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT AP PRECIATED THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE MATERIALS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO W HICH ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS U/S 6 8 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN HIS FINDINGS BASED ON THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S 13 3(6) OF THE ACT WHICH WERE RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED AND FURTHER THE AO ALSO ISSUED A COMMISSION FOR CONDUCTING AN ENQUIRY BY THE DDIT (I NV.), KOLKATA. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTOR COMPANY IS NOT HAVING ANY INCOME BUT ONLY A MEAGER AMOUNT OF RS. 2,68,625/- W AS DECLARED AS REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 THAT TOO UN DER THE HEAD ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 9 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, SUBSTANTIATE THE VIE W OF THE AO THAT CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SAID COMPANY IS NOT PROVED. THE LD. DR THUS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AS WELL AS FOLLOWING CASE LAWS. 1. PR. CIT VS NRA IRON & STEEL (P) LTD. (2019) 103 TAXMANN.COM 48 (SC). 2. ITO VS APJ CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD (ITA NO. 722/DEL/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DATED 31- 12-2019 DELHI TRIB) 3. PREM CASTINGS (P) LTD. VS CIT (2017) 88 TAXMANN.CO M 189 (ALL) 2.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCES TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTOR COMPA NY AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 DA TED 06-01-2010 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS VERIFIED THE SHARE CA PITAL RECEIVED BY THE SAID COMPANY AND ACCEPTED THE SAME. FURTHER, THE SA ID COMPANY HAS BEEN REGULARLY FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO SHOW N AS ACTIVE AS PER COMPANY MASTER DATA OF ROC. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESS EE HAS ALSO FILED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 6-12-2019 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2017-18 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS PASSED THE SCRUTINY A SSESSMENT ORDER IN THE ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 10 CASE OF INVESTOR COMPANY. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSE E FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NOTICES ISSUED U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE AC T WERE DULY SERVED UPON THE INVESTOR COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE IDENTITY AND EXISTENCE OF THE SAID COMPANY CANNOT BE DISTURBED. AS PER RECORD OF ROC, THE SAID COMPANY HAS BEEN REGULARLY FILING THE RETURN WHICH SHOWS EXISTENCE OF THE SAID COMPANY AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF THE COMP ANY. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ONCE THE AO HAS EXAMINE D THE SOURCE OF FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANY THEN THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM THE SAID AM OUNT AVAILABLE WITH M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. CANNOT BE DOUBTED. THE THEORY OF NO INCOME OR VERY LESS INCOME CANNOT BE APPLIED WHEN T HE SAID COMPANY WAS ENOUGH FUNDS TO RECEIVE AS SHARE CAPITAL AS WEL L AS RESERVED FUNDS AND THE INVESTMENT SHOWN FROM THE SAID FUNDS AND NOT TH E INCOME FROM OPERATION. ONCE THE FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF THE INVES TOR COMPANY ARE NOT IN DISPUTE AND TRANSACTION IS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL THEN CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS ALSO PROVED. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE AO TO CLARIFY CER TAIN FACTS AND ALSO FURNISH THE REQUISITE INFORMATION INCLUDING THE STA TEMENT OF SHRI ANAND ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 11 SHARMA BUT DESPITE REPEATED DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. C IT(A), THE AO DID NOT FURNISH THE REQUISITE INFORMATION. FURTHER, THE AO HAS RELIED ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA WITHOUT ANY CORROBOR ATIVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION E NTRIES. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE THUS CONTENDED THAT EVEN FROM THE STAT EMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE INVESTOR CO MPANY M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. WAS MANAGED AND CONTROLLED BY HI M AND USED FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. ONCE THIS COMPANY IS EVEN NOT OWNED BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA OR ANY OF HIS ASSOCIATES OR RE LATIVES AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME WHEN THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN THE QUESTION OF PROVIDING THE ACCOMMO DATION ENTRIES BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA DOES NOT ARISE. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PROPOSED TO BE FILE D BY THE LD. DR AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PROCEEDING S BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR CANNOT GO BEYOND THE ASSESSMENT RECORD A S WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT HE CAN SUPPORT THE ORDER OF TH E AO BASED ON THE RECORD AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN SUPPOR T OF HIS CONTENTIONS, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS . ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 12 1. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD VS DCIT, (2009) 122 TTJ 0577 / 22 DTR 0362 2. KWL PRO EXPORTS VS ACIT 110 ITD 059 THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT TH E NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. MAY BE AT OLD ADDRESS AND NOT AT THE CURRENT ADDRESS. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE ANNUAL RETURN FILED BY THE SAID COM PANY AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CORRECT ADDRESS IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BUT THE AO MIGHT HAVE ISSUED THE NOTICES AT WRONG ADDRESS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CON TENTIONS, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER DATED 01-07-2019 OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. IZZY MET ALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO (ITA NO.75/JP/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) . THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE THUS SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS BASED ON SURMISES AN D CONJECTURES AND WITHOUT HAVING ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT T HE TRANSACTION IS NOT GENUINE. 2.4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AO HAS PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPL ICATION MONEY RECEIVED ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 13 BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LT D. BY REFERRING TO THE SEARCH AND SURVEY ACTION CARRIED OUT BY THE DGIT (I NV.) KOLKATA, IN PARA 3.1 AS UNDER:- 3(1). A SEARCH AND SURVEY ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA, KOLKATA (ENTRY PROVI DER) AND HIS GROUP BY THE DGIT(INV.), KOLKATA ON 02-07-2013 WHEN VARIOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED AND IMPOUNDED. THE SEARCH ACTION RESULTED INTO COLLECTI ON OF EVIDENCES AND OTHER FINDINGS WHICH CONCLUSIVELY PRO VED THAT SHRI ANAND SHARMA THROUGH A WEB OF CONCERNS RUN AND OPERATED BY HIM, IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODAT ION ENTRIES OF VARIOUS NATURE LIKE BOGUS UNSECURED LOAN S, BOGUS SHARE APPLICATION AND BOGUS SALES ETC. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AO HAS PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA RECORDED BY INVESTIGATION WING, KOLKAT A DURING SEARCH AND SURVEY ACTION CARRIED OUT ON 02-07-2013. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, K OLKATA, SHRI ANAND SHARMA HAS ADMITTED THAT HE IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, UNSE CURE LOANS ETC. HOWEVER, IN THE ENTIRE STATEMENT SHRI ANAND SHARMA HAS NOT STATED THAT M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. IS ONE OF THE CONC ERNS / COMPANIES CONTROLLED OR MANAGED BY HIM IN PROVIDING SUCH ACCO MMODATION ENTRIES. ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 14 EVEN OTHERWISE WHEN THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON 0 2-07-2013, M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. WAS NOT A COMPANY EITHE R OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA DIRECTLY OR INDIREC TLY. THIS FACT IS MANIFEST FROM THE RECORDS AS PRODUCED BY THE LD. DR AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT 100% SHAREHOLDING OF THE SAID COMPANY M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. WAS ACQUIRED BY THE FOLLOWING GR OUP CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. (1) M/S. SKYWAY COLONIZERS PVT. LTD. (2) SKYWAY ISPAT PVT. LTD AND (3) SKYWAY TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. THIS FACT IS ALSO REVEALED FROM THE ANNUAL RETURN F ILED BY THE SAID COMPANY IN THE OFFICE OF ROC FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 A S ON 30-09-2009 . THUS WHEN THE COMPANY WAS ALREADY OWNED BY THREE GR OUP CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THEN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANA ND SHARMA ADMITTING HIS INVOLVEMENT IN PROVIDING THE ACCOMMODATION ENTR IES IS NOT RELEVANT IN THE CASE OF INVESTOR COMPANY M/S. ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. THE ENTIRE BASIS OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS TURN ED OUT TO BE CONTRARY TO THE ACTUAL FACTS. ONCE THE INVESTOR COMPANY IS A WH OLLY OWNED COMPANY OF THE GROUP CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF THEN T HERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 15 ROLE OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA IN MAKING THE INVESTMENT BY THIS COMPANY IN THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE VERY BASIS OF THE AO THAT TRANSACTION IS BOGUS BEING THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIE S PROVIDED BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA THROUGH HIS CONCERN, HAS NO LEGS TO ST AND UPON. THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY THE AO ON THE ASSUMPT ION OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA STANDS VITIATED BY THE FACT THAT THE INVESTOR COMPANY WAS NEITHER O WNED NOR CONTROLLED NOR MANAGED EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY SHRI A NAND SHARMA AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSACTION OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES OR ON T HE DATE OF SEARCH ON. 02-07-2013. THEREFORE, THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT I S SOLELY BASED ON SURMISES THAT THIS COMPANY IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS M ANAGED AND CONTROLLED BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA AND HIS INVOLVEMENT IN PROVIDI NG THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IS ONLY THE ASSUMPTION OF INC ORRECT FACTS. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE ITS O NUS U/S 68 OF THE ACT HAS PRODUCED THE PAN, INCOME TAX RETURN AND THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 DATED 6-01-2010. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE THE AS SESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ITO, WARD- 1(1), KOLKATA. ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 16 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS E-RETURN FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 30.09.2008 DECLARING OF TOTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL. THE RETURN WAS DULY PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 12.08.2009. THE CASE W AS SELECTED FOR COMPULSORY SCRUTINY BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148. ACCO RDINGLY, NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 143(1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WERE ISSU ED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE AFORESAID NOTICES, SRI SANJOY KR . FOGLA, THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEING DULY AUTHORISED BY THE A SSESSEE COMPANY, APPEARED FOR HEARING FROM TIME TO TIME. THE A/R DUR ING THE COURSE OF HEARING, EXPLAINED THE RETURN, FILED SOME RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS RETURN AND HAS ALSO PRODUCED ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR EXAMINATION. THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED AND HEARD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 01.10.2007 AND AS ON 31.03.2008, IT HAD PAID UP CAPITAL AMOUNT ING TO RS. 56,97,500/- AND SHARE PREMIUM RESERVE AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,03,33,500 /-. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, INQUIRES WERE CONDUCTED WITH VARIOUS SHARE HOLDERS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY ISSUING NOTICES U/S 133(6). DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS EXCEPT INVESTMENT ON THE OTHER HAND, I T HAS INCURRED EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,725/-. THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES SO CLAIMED ARE NOT ALLOWED FOR DEDUCTION AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRI ED OUT ANY BUSINESS DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS COMPUTED AS UNDER: TOTAL INCOME (LOSS) -AS PER RETURN (-) RS. 11,7 25/- ADD: ENTIRE EXPENSES DISALLOWED- AS DISCUSSED ABOV E. RS. 11,725/- ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME NIL TAX ON ABOVE NIL ASSESSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, I SSUED COMPANY OF ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SD/- (MINGUR DORJEE) ITO, WARD- 1(1), KOLKATA ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 17 THE AO HAS STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING , THE LD.AR OF THE SAID COMPANY EXPLAINED THE RETURN FILED, RELEVANT DOCUME NTS IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURN AND ALSO PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR E XAMINATION. THE AO ALSO RECORDED THE DATE OF INCORPORATION AS WELL AS THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM RECEIVED BY THE SAID COMPANY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 10,63,3,500/-. THE AO ALSO CONDUCTED THE ENQUIRY FROM VARIOUS SHAR EHOLDERS BY ISSUING NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO VERIFY THE TRANSAC TIONS OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED BY THE SAID COMPANY. ONLY AF TER SATISFACTION FROM THE ENQUIRY, THE AO ACCEPTED THE SAME. THUS EVEN IN FIRST YEAR OF ITS INCORPORATION, THE SAID COMPANY RECEIVED THE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM TO THE TUNE OF RS. 10,63,3,500/- AND THE SA ID AMOUNT WAS ALSO IN THE BOOKS OF SAID COMPANY AND EVEN AT THE TIME OF INVESTING THIS AMOUNT OF RS.3.98CRORES IN THE SHARES OF ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE TRANSACTION OF PAYMENTS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE SAID COMPANY AT THE TIME OF I NVESTMENT IS FULLY OWNED BY THE GROUP CONCERNS AS STATED ABOVE AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE SAID COMPANIES WERE ALSO SHRI RONAK ROYAL GUPTA AND SMT. RAJNI GUPTA WHO ARE ALSO THE SHAREHOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE GROU P CONCERNS AS WELL AS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS IS ALSO THE DIRECTOR OF THE AS SESSEE COMPANY. ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 18 THEREFORE, THE SAID COMPANY WAS NEITHER OWNED NOR C ONTROLLED BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA. AS REGARDS THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT EARLIER THE ADDRESS O F THE SAID COMPANY WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE CURRENT ADDRESS AS IT IS APPAREN T FROM RECORDS AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AN D OTHER SUBSEQUENT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH ROC. THEREFORE, THE POSSIBIL ITY OF SENDING THE NOTICES BY THE AO AT THE OLD ADDRESS CANNOT BE RULE D OUT. ONCE THERE IS A CHANGE OF ADDRESS THEN ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BLAMED FO R NON-DELIVERY OF THE NOTICE. AS REGARDS THE COMMISSION ISSUED BY THE AO, IT WAS ONLY FOR CONDUCTING AN ENQUIRY FROM SHRI ANAND SHRMA AND NOT FROM THE INVESTOR COMPANY. THE DDIT (INV.), KOLKATA HAS CLEARLY SUBMI TTED THE REPORT WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY ENQUIRY BY GIVING THE REASON S THAT DESPITE SUMMON ISSUED TO SHRI ANAND SHARMA, HE DID NOT TURN UP. THEREFORE, THIS WAS AN EMPTY AND FUTILE EXERCISE. ONCE SHRI ANAND S HARMA WAS NOT CONTROLLING OR MANAGING THE INVESTOR COMPANY EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY AT THE RELEVANT TIME THEN THE SO-CALLED ENQUIRY WOU LD NOT HAVE RESULTED ANY POSITIVE OUTCOME. FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT THE AO HAS NOT SUPPLIED ANY DOCUMENTARY OR INCRIMINATING EVIDENCES TO THE ASSES SEE. EVEN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA WAS NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT IT IS ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 19 STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S APPRISED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF IN RESPECT OF SEARCH OF SHRI ANAN D SHARMA. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PARA 4 (III) IS AS UNDER:- 4(III). IT IS IMPORTANT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS APPRISED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEFLY IN RE SPECT OF SEARCH ACTION OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA BY DGIT (INV), K OLKATTA AND ALSO SHOWN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA I N WHICH ALL THE EVIDENCES WERE NARRATED BY THE INVEST IGATION WING AND WAS ASKED TO GIVE THEIR COMMENTS AND ALSO ASKED TO SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY THE SHARE CAPITAL OF RS. 3,98,00,000/- INTRODUCED DURING THE F.Y. 2011-12 FR OM THE GROUP AFORESAID COMPANIES MAY NOT BE TREATED AS NON - GENUINE AS THE SAME IS ONLY DIVERSION OF PROFITS TO EVADE THE TAX LIABILITIES. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AO WAS NOT HAVING ANY D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERE D AS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE SHAPE OF SHARE CAPITAL/ SHARE APPLIC ATION MONEY/ PREMIUM. EVEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE AO T O PRODUCE THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA AS WELL AS OTHER SEI ZED MATERIALS . IT APPEARS THAT SINCE THE AO WAS NOT HAVING ANY EVIDEN CE IN HIS POSSESSION, THEREFORE, HE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE SAID REQUEST O F THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 20 CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED ALL THESE FACTS IN PARA 5.3 TO 5.11AND HAS GIVEN HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 5.12 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 5.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, STA TEMENT OF FACTS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN FROM PARA 3.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT A SEARCH AND SURVEY ACTIO N WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA AND HISGROUP BY - THE DDIT INVESTIGATION KOLKATA ON 02.07.2013. ACCORDING TO AO, THE SEARCH ACTION RESU LTED INTO COLLECTION OF EVIDENCES AND OTHER FINDING WHICH CONCLUSIVELY PROV ED THAT SHRI ANAND SHARMA, THROUGH A WEB OF CONCERNS RUN AND OPERATED BY HIM, WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF VARIOUS NATUR E LIKE BOGUS UNSECURED LOANS, BOGUS SHARE APPLICATION AND BOGUS SHARES ETC. BUT THE AO HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE EVIDENCES AND OTHER FINDINGS 'WHICH CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT SHRI ANAND SHARMA THROUGH A WEB OF CONC ERNS RUN AND OPERATED BY HIM WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODAT ION ENTRIES'. AGAIN AT PARA 4.5, THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT VARIOUS INCR IMINATING DOCUMENTS/ MATERIAL WAS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND ACCORDING TO AO, DURING THE POST SEARCH INVESTIGATION AND PERUSAL OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT SHRI ANAND SHARMA WAS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES BY PROVIDING CHEQUE S/ POIDD IN LIEU OF CASH TO A LARGE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY COMPANIES THR OUGH VARIOUS PAPER AND DUMMY COMPANY OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY HIM. H OWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS PAID CASH FOR OBTAINING THE ACCOMMODATI ON ENTRY IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM M/S ABHISHEK ADVISO RY PVT. LIMITED. FROM PAGE NO. 4 TO 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS QUOTED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND KUMAR SHARMA RECORDED DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 7 AND 8, SHRI ANAN D SHARMA HAS STATED AS UNDER: 'Q.7 PLEASE STATE THE NAME OF THE COMPANIES IN WHIC H YOU AND YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH? ANS. I AM A DIRECTOR IN QUALITY JEWEL BOX & DISPLAY PVT. LTD APART FROM THAT I AM ALSO A DIRECTOR IN MY OTHER COMPANIE S. MY WIFE SMT. SOBHA SHARMA IS ALSO ANOTHER DIRECTOR IN QUALITY JEWEL BO X & DISPLAY PVT. LTD. APART FROM THAT I AM ALSO A DIRECTOR IN MANY OTHER COMPAN IES. THE DETAILS FOR THE ABOVE WILL BE FURNISHED SUBSEQUENTLY. ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 21 Q.8 PLEASE STATE THE NAME OF THE COMPANIES MANAGED/ CONTROLLED BY YOU AND ALSO STATE WHO ARE THE DIRECTORS IN THESE C OMPANIES? BE SUBMITTED LATER ON . ANS. AS FAR AS MY KNOWLEDGE IS CONCERNED, AROUND 50 0 COMPANIES APPROXIMATELY ARE BEING CONTROLLED BY ME, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THOSE COMPANIES ARE MAINTAINED IN THE C OMPUTER IN THIS OFFICE. I WILL ALSO PROVIDE SEPARATE LIST OF ALL THE OTHER CO MPANIES CONTROLLED BY ME....' HOWEVER, FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER SHRI ANAND SHAMA HAD SUBMITTED ANY LIST OF COMPANIES CONTROLLE D BY HIM. 5.4 AS THE AO HAS AT PAGE 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R HAS PASTED COPY OF A SCREEN SHOT WHEREIN LIST OF COMPANIES IS GIVEN AND IN THAT LIST NAME OF M/S ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. IS APPEARING, THEREFORE , THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 11.05.2017 WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH FOLLOWING INFOR MATION '1. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO FURNISH COPY OF THE STATEM ENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA AND OTHER SEIZED / IMPOUNDED MATERIAL ON WHICH THE AO HAS RELIED UPON FOR MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,99,00,000/- U/S 68 IN RESPECT OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM M/S ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LIMITED. 2. AT PAGE NO. 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, A SCANNE D COPY OF 'LIST OF COMPANIES' HAS BEEN PASTED. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO CL ARIFY WHETHER THE LIST IS PART OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA BECAUSE AT PAGE NO. 10, THE AO HAS MENTIONED AT PARA 4.(VII) 'IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT DAT ED 02.07.2013, AS PER REPLY OF QUESTION NO. 8 OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA, IT WAS ACCEPTE D BY HIM THAT HE IS CONTROLLING AROUND 500 COMPANIES AND M/S ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. IS ONE OF THEM. WE ARE PRODUCING LIST OF COMPANY OPERATED BY SHRI ANAND SH ARMA WHICH WAS MAINTAINING IN A ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE IS AS UNDER'. IF THE SCANNED COPY OF THE LIST PASTED AT PAGE NO. 11 IS NOT THE PART OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND S HARMA THEN WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THIS LIST.' AS NO RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE AO THEREFORE, AGAIN REMINDER WERE ISSUED ON 29.05.2017. ALONG WITH HIS LETTER DATED 30.05.2017, THE ITO, WA RD-4(2), JAIPUR HAS ONLY ENCLOSED STATEMENT DATED 02.07.2013 OF SHRI AN AND KUMAR SHARMA RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION U/S 133A AND COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT PASTED AT PAGE 12 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT CLARIFIED WHETHER THE LIST OF COMPANIES PAS TED AT PAGE 12 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PART OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA AND IF ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 22 THE LIST OF COMPANIES WAS NOT PART OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHAMA THEN WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THAT LIST. 5.5 AT PAGE 11, THE AO REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT PASTED AT 2, PAGE NO. 11 HAS MENTIONED THAT 'AS PER THE ABOVE LIST IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT M/S ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD . FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, WHICH A RE CONTROLLED BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA AND TO ACCOMMODATION ENTRY HAS BEEN PR OVIDED'. AS ALREADY / DISCUSSED ABOVE, NEITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER N OR DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS GIV EN THE SOURCE OF THE SCREEN PASTED AT PAGE 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5.6 AT PARA 4(VIII), THE AO HAS STATED 'IN VIEW OF ABOVE, ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALL THE RELEVANT PAPER OF THESE PERSONS ACT ONLY AS THEIR STOOGES. ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALL THE RELEVANT PAPER OF THESE COMPANIES WERE FOUND AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THESE COMPANIES ARE RUN BY SH. ANAND SHARMA AND HE CONTROLLED ALL THESE COMPANIES THROUGH DUMMY DIRECTORS/ PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF THESE COMPAN IES. THIS COULD BE ESTABLISHED BY A CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF SEIZED MATE RIAL, INCLUDING THE COMPUTER HARD DISCS, PAN DRIVE AND TALLY DATA, WHIC H CONTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THESE COMPANIES. DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH DAILY CASH BOOKS, BALANCE SHEET AND CHEQUE BOOKS WERE FOUND WHEREIN D ETAILS OF CASH RECEIVED FROM DIFFERENT COMPANIES/ PERSONS THROUGH VARIOUS MIDDLEMEN/ AGENTS IN LIEU OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED TO THEM ON DIFFERENT DATES HAVE BEEN RECORDED'. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT DISCUS SED ANY SEIZED DOCUMENT IN WHICH THE CASH RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESS EE COMPANY FOR OBTAINING THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FROM M/S ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. WAS FOUND RECORDED. 5.7 AT PARA 5.1, THE AO REFERS THE INVESTIGATION CA RRIED OUT BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, KOLKATA AS WELL AS THE DOCUMENT S AND PAPERS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BUT HE HAS NOT DISCUSSE D ANYTHING ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA AND INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, KOLKATA. AGAIN AT PARA 5.(II), THE AO HAS STA TED 'ON EXAMINATION OF THE MATERIALS PROVIDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING , IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED FICTITIOUS COMPANY FLOATED BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA'. BUT THE AO HAS NOT DISCUSSED WHAT WAS THE MATERIAL PROVIDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING AND EXAMINED BY HIM. 5.8 AS THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) TO M/S ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD., KOLKATA WAS RETURNED UNSERVED, THEREFORE THE AO ISSUED COMMISSION U/S 131(1)(D) TO DDIT INVESTIGATION, OFF ICE OF THE DGIT ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 23 INVESTIGATION KOLKATA. ACCORDING TO AO, THE COMMISS ION WAS ISSUED TO RECORD THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA FOR CONFI RMATION OF THE FACT OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AS AFOREMENTIONE D SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CAN NOT TAKE SHELTER BEFO RE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE DDIT HAS REPORTED THAT SUMMONS U/S 1 31 WAS SENT TO SHRI ANAND SHARMA AT THE THREE ADDRESSES AVAILABLE WITH HIS OFFICE, HOWEVER SHRI ANAND SHARMA DID NOT TURN UP. THEREFORE, THE D DIT REQUESTED THE AO 'TO DO THE NEEDFUL WHATEVER DEEMED FIT IN THE IN TEREST OF REVENUE'. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AO INSPITE OF HAVING ISS UEDCOMMISSION U/S 131(1)(D), COULD NOT GET THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA RECORDED, CONFIRMING THAT HE HAD PROVIDED ANY ACCOMMODATION E NTRY TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY THROUGH M/S ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT .LIMITED. 5.9 AT PARA 5(IV), THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT 'ALL T HE EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES WHO OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY IN T HE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE DUMMY COMPANIES FLOATED BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA'. HOWEVER HE HAS NOT DISCUSSED WHAT ARE THE EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHICH ACCORDING TO AO CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY WHO OBTAINED ACCO MMODATION ENTRY IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION_MONEY_FROM THE DUMMY COMPANY FLOATED BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA. 5.10 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE APPELLANT VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 21.01.2015 (AT PARA 6) HAD REQUESTED T HE AO TO SUPPLY ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL AND ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION. PARA 6 OF LETTER DATED 21.01.2015 OF THE APPELLANT IS REPRODU CED HERE UNDER FOR READY REFERENCE: 'IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED TO THE COMPANY IS NOT GENUINE. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PROVIDED WHICH INDICATES THAT THE SAID COMPANY OR I TS DIRECTOR HAD STATED ANYTHING ABOUT THE COMPANY. IF THERE IS ANY SUCH AD VERSE MATERIAL THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, AND FURTHER THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED. THE GENERAL STAT EMENTS CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE UNLESS THE SAME IS GIVEN FOR T HE SPECIFIC COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOR THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES BEING MAD E. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT NO ADVERSE MATERIAL CAN BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSE E UNLESS THE SAME IS BEING SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND OPPORTUNITY IS BEING P ROVIDED TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SAME. YOUR KIND ATTENTION IS INVITED TOWARDS THE FO LLOWING DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD.' ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 24 HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT PROVIDE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSON ON WHOSE STATEMENT HE HAS RELIED UPON FOR MAKING THE ADDITION U/S 68. 5.11 THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED FOLLOWING DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICAN T AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION: 1. CONFIRMATORY LETTER OF THE SHARE APPLICANT. 2. COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE ITR 4 AND 5 ( A.Y. 2013-14). 3. COPY OF BALANCE SHEET AND P&L ACCOUNT DATED 31.0 3.2016. 4. BANK STATEMENT OF THE SHARE APPLICANT WHEREIN TH E PAYMENTS MADE TO THE APPELLANT TOWARD SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ARE AP PEARING. THERE IS NO CASH DEPOSIT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OR AFTER THE ISS UE OF CHEQUES TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 5. COPY OF ROC DOCUMENT (FORM NO. 20B, FORM NO. 23A C, FORM NO. 23ACA, FORM NO. 66, FORM NO. 23B) AND ANNUAL RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD (FY 2011-12) AND (F.Y. 2015-16). 6. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 06.01.2010 OF M/S ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 148. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT M/S ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. WAS INCORPORATED ON 01. 10.2007 AND AS ON 31.03.2008, IT HAD PAID UP CAPITAL OF RS. 55, 97,500/- AND SHARE PREMIUM RESERVE OF RS. 10,63,33,500/-. THE AO DID CONDUCT ENQUIRIES U/S 133(6) WITH VARIOUS SHAREHOLDERS OF T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 5.12. THUS, FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE ID ENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF M/S ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. WHEREAS THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDIT ION WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT H AD PAID CASH FOR OBTAINING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, FROM M/S ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LIMITED. THE AO HAS NOT DISCUSSED ANY EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES THAT M/S ABHISHEK ADVISOR Y PVT. LTD. WAS THE COMPANY CONTROLLED AND MANAGED BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA . THE SOURCE OF THE 'LIST OF COMPANIES' PASTED AT PAGE 11 OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER HAS NOT BEEN CLARIFIED BY THE AO. THE AO HAS NOT DISCUSSED ANY SEIZED MATERIAL OR THE INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY INVESTIGATION W ING KOLKATA WHICH ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 25 PROVES THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY RECEIVED ACCOMMOD ATION ENTRY IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM ,M/S ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. BY MAKING CASH PAYMENT TO SHRI ANAND SHARMA OR HIS AGENT/ MIDDLE MAN. THOUGH THE AO HAS RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA BUT INSPITE OF HAVING BEEN REQUESTED SPECIFI CALLY BY THE APPELLANT, THE AO DID NOT PROVIDE ANY OPPORTUNITY T O THE APPELLANT TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI ANAND SHARMA. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE DISCUSSION, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FU RNISHED EACH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE IDENTITY AND CREDITWO RTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. WHER EAS, THE AO HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY IN THE FORM OF SHARE A PPLICATION MONEY FROM M/S ABHISHEK ADVISORY PVT. LTD. BY PAYING CASH FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME EITHER TO SHRI ANAND SHARMA OR TO ANY OF HIS AGENT/ MIDDLE MAN. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS DECIS IONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, SPECIFICALLY THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS CCE (ORDER DATED 02.09 .2015) AND DECISION OF ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF JADAU JEWELLERS & MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT (175 TTJ (JP) 344), ADDITION OF RS. 3,98,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 IS HEREBY DELET ED. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL THE RELEVANT DOC UMENTS AS NARRATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 5.11 ABOVE THEN ONUS CASTED U/S 68 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DULY DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE ASSE SSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS PRIMARY ONUS THEN BURDEN IS SHIFTED ON THE AO T O BRING ON RECORD THE CONTRARY MATERIAL OR FACTS TO DISPROVE EVIDENCE PRO DUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO EXCEPT NARRATING THE MODUS OPERANDI AS DISCL OSED BY SHRI ANAND SHARMA, HAS NOT REFERRED TO ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E OR OTHER MATERIAL TO SUPPORT HIS VIEW AND FINDINGS. THEREFORE, THE FI NDINGS OF THE AO ARE MERELY AN ASSUMPTION AND BASED ON CONJECTURE AND SU RMISES AND NOT ON ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 26 ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL. AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS NRA IRON & STEEL (P) LTD (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS SPECIFICA LLY MENTIONED THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE IN PARA 9 AS UNDER:- 9 THE JUDGEMENT CITED HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OUGHT TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY TO VERIFY T HE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN INDEPENDENT AND DETAILED ENQUIRY, INCLUDING SURVEY OF THE SO CALLED INVESTOR COMPANIES FROM MUMBAI, KOLKATA AND GUWAHATI TO VERIFY THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PART IES, THE SOURCE OF FUNDS INVESTED AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE FIELD REPORTS REVEALED THAT THE S HAREHOLDERS WERE EITHER NON-EXISTENT OR LACKED CREDITWORTHINESS . IT IS CLEAR IN THE SAID CASE THAT THE AO MADE AN IN DEPENDENT AND DETAILED ENQUIRY INCLUDING SURVEY OF SO-CALLED INVESTOR COMP ANY FROM MUMBAI, KOLKATA AND GAUHATI TO VERIFY THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES, SOURCE OF FUNDS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE F IELD REPORTS REVEAL THAT SHAREHOLDERS WERE EITHER NON-EXISTENT OR LACK OF CR EDITWORTHINESS. ON THE CONTRARY, IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE INVESTOR COMPANY IS VERY MUCH IN EXISTENCE AND SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. EVE N FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-1, THE SAID COMPANY HAS UNDER GONE SCRUTI NY ASSESSMENT. ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 27 THEREFORE, THE EXISTENCE OF THE COMPANY IS NOT IN D ISPUTE AS IT IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE RECORD. SECONDLY, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS NRA IRON & STEEL (P) LTD (SUPRA ) IN PARA 13 OBSERVED THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE IGNORED THE DETAILED EN QUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AS UNDER:-. PARA 13. THE COURT/ AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT EVE N ADVERT TO THE FIELD ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO WHICH REVE ALED THAT IN SEVERAL CASES THE INVESTOR COMPANIES WERE FOUND TO BE NON- EXISTENT AND THE ONUS TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES, WAS NOT DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MAT ERIAL ON RECORD AS A RESULT OF ANY ENQUIRY. THE COMMISSION ISSUED TO THE DIT (INV), KOLKATA HAS NOT YIELDED ANY RESULT. THUS EXCEPT ON THE RELI ANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA, THE AO WAS NOT HAVING EITHER ANY DOCUMENT IN HIS POSSESSION OR ANY OTHER FACTS DETECTED AS AN OUTCOM E OF ENQUIRY. THE SAID STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND SHARMA HAS NOT MADE ANY ALL EGATION REGARDING TRANSACTION OF INVESTMENT MADE BY M/S. ABHISHEK ADV ISORY PVT. LTD. THEREFORE, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE IGNORED OR REJECTED. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ITA NO.691/JP/2017 ITO, WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR VS M/S. SKYWAYS I NDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 28 OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 /02/20 20. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 21/02/ 2020 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO, WARD- 4(2),JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S. SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COM PANY (P) LTD., JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A), 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.691/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR