ITO, Ward - 1(1), Kolkata , Kolkata V. M/s. Dazzle Projects Pvt. Ltd., , Kolkata

ITA 757/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6304 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN CHOUDHUR Y
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH TIWARI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Bogus Share capital; Gift; Source of fund; Additional evidence; Wholly owned subsidiary; Reasonable cause; Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 131; 68

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 757 / KOL / 20 18 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, ROOM. NO.06 7 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 069 V/S . M/S DAZZLE PROJECTS PVT. LTD., 14/3, CHATTAWALA LANE, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 012 [ PAN NO.AADCD 3096 K ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI ROBIN CHOUDHURY, ADDL CIT-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI MANISH TIWARI, FCA /DATE OF HEARING 04-02-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03-05-2019 / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 A RISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, KOLKATAS O RDER DATED 30.01.2018 PASSED IN CASE NO. 242/CIT(A)-7/KOL/WARD-3(3)/16-17 , INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT T HE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE REVENUES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE SEEKS T O CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF CIT(A)S ACTION REVERSING THE ASSESS MENT FINDINGS TREATING ASSESSEES SHARE APPLICATION / PREMIUM RECEIPT AMOU NTING TO 4,53,00,000/- ITA NO.757/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO WD-1(1) KOL. VS. M/S DAZZLE PR OJECTS PVT. LTD. PAGE 2 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS LIABLE TO BE ADDED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION TO THIS EFFECT READS AS UNDER:- 5. CONCLUSION: I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THE ORDER 01' THE A.O AS WELL AS THE DETAILED SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SOLE ISSUE FOR MY CONSIDERATIO N IS THAT WHETHER THE SUM OF RS 4,53,00,000/- RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM SORE SHARE APPLICANT M/S LAKSHMIRARNAN INVESTMENT: & FINANCE L.TD CAN BE CON SIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. I FIND THAT DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE APPELLANT HAS ALLOTTED 90,600 EQUITY: SHARES OF RS 10/- EACH AT A PREMIUM OF RS 490/- PER SHARE. TH E ,AR HAS EXPLAINED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL SUM OF RS 4,53,00,000/- ONLY RS 3, 21,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED A SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN EARLIER FINANCIAL YEAR I .E 2010-11. I FIND FROM THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS THE LEDGER COPIES FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK THAT INDEED THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED THE SUM OF RS 3,2 1,00,00/- IN FY 2010-11. THUS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ADDITION U/S 68 CAN BE MADE ONLY FOR THE SUM OF MONEY FOUND CREDIT DURING THE RELEVANT P REVIOUS YEAR AND IT CANNOT HAVE ANY APPLICABILITY ON SUM OF MONEY RECEIVED IN EARLIER YEAR. THUS THE .AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 3,21,00,00 0/- AS IT WAS NOT RECEIVED DURING THE RELEVANT: ASSESSMENT YEAR. AS REGARDS THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS 1,32,00,000 /- ( RS 4,53,00,000 - RS 3,21,00,000/-) RECEIVED FROM THE SAME SHARE APPLICA NT M/S LAKSHMIRAMAN INVESTMENT & FINANCE LTD. SECTION 68 OF THE ACT CAN BE INVOKED UPON AN ASSESSEE ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO 'PROVE THE I DENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACT ION. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS 1,32,00,000/ - TOWARDS SHARE CAPITAL INCLUDING SHARE PREMIUM OF RS 1,29,36,000/- FROM M/ S LAKSHMIRAMAN INVESTMENT & FINANCE LTD. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED COMPLETE DETAILS AS REQUISITIONED THROUGH NOTICE U/S 142(1.) BY THE AO IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. I ALSO FIND THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED SUMMON U/S 131 TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY M/S LAKSHRNIRARNAN INVESTMENT: & FINANCE LTD. ON, 05.11.2014 AND THE AO ALSO ISSUE D SUMMON TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY 13.02.15. FROM THE ORDER S HEET ENTRY DATED 23.02.2015, COMMON DIRECTOR OF THE SHARE APPLICANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DULY APPEARED BEFORE THE AO. THE AO HAS ACC EPTED ALL THE SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH DETAILS AND EVIDENCES FILED BY SUCH DIRECTOR IN RESPECT OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, THE AO PLACED ALL S UCH DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPA NCY IN THE DETAILS FILED. THE EVIDENCES FILED HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE NON-GENUI NE OR BOGUS OR FALSE. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH TH AT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON IT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. I ALSO FIND THAT BOTH THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY A S WELL AS THE APPELLANT COMPANY ARE OPERATIONAL COMPANIES HAVING BUSINESS A S WELL AS SUBSTANTIAL NET WORTH. I FIND FROM THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY THAT INDEED IT IS HOLDING REAL ESTATE' AND INVESTMENTS I N MUTUAL FUND APART FROM OTHER INVESTMENTS. THUS THERE REMAINS NO DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT A PAPER COMPANY INVOLVED IN ROTATING MONEY. ITA NO.757/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO WD-1(1) KOL. VS. M/S DAZZLE PR OJECTS PVT. LTD. PAGE 3 I FIND THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY M/S LAKSHRN IRARNAN INVESTMENT & FINANCE LTD IS A REGISTERED WITH THE RBI AS A NON B ANKING FINANCE COMPANY. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SUMMON ISSUED U/S 131 THE SHAR E APPLICANT THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR FURNISHED ITS IDENTITY AS WELL AS ADDRESS PROOF, COPY OF MOA & AOA, COPY OF NBFC CERTIFICATE, COPY OF ANNUAL RETURN FIL ED WITH THE ROC, COPIES OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR FY 2010-11 & 2011-12, COPIES O F BANK STATEMENT. IT ALSO EXPLAINED IN DETAILS ABOUT THE SOURCE AS WELL AS TH E SOURCE OF SOURCE OF FUND FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT IN THE APPELLANT COMPANY. I FIND THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD FILED EXPLANATION FOR JUSTIFICATION O F PREMIUM PAID FOR ACQUIRING THE SHARES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. NONE OF THE DO CUMENTS FURNISHED OR EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY EITHER THE SHARE APPLICANT OR THE APPELLANT WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR NONE GENUINE. THE AO HAS NOT BEE N TO POINT OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THESE DOCUMENTS. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE CORPORATE SHARE APP LICANT ARE REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AS WELL AS AN NBFC WITH THE RBI AND IS ON THE RECORDS OF REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES FUNCTIONING UNDER MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND IS ALSO HAVING PER MANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER. IN FACT, THE SHARE SUBSCRIBER HAVE RESPONDED TO THE STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED TO THEM U/S 131 OF THE ACT. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/ S 131 THE SHARE SUBSCRIBER HAD, DISCLOSED, INTER ALIA, IT'S PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SUBMISSION OF THEIR RETURN OF INC OME AND FURNISHED AUDIT REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WHICH IN MY HUMBLE OPINION PROVES THEIR IDENTITIES. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE SHARE APPL ICANT MAINTAINED BANK ACCOUNTS; AND COPIES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOU NTS FROM WHICH IT MADE PAYMENTS TO THE APPELLANT FOR SUBSCRIBING TO THE SH ARES ISSUED TO THEM, WAS FILED BY BEFORE THE AO. FURTHER, THE SHARE APPLICAN T ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THEY HAD SUBSCRIBED TO THE SHARES ISSUED BY THE APPELLAN T; AND THAT SUCH TRANSACTIONS WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THEIR RESPECTIV E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AS WELL AS IN THEIR AUDITED BALANCE SHEET. THESE FACTS, IN MY OPINION, CLEARLY PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED T.HAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAS E XPLAINED THE SOURCE OF FUNDS IN ITS REPLY TO NOTICE U/S131 OF THE ACT, FROM WHI CH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE APPELLANT FOR SUBSCRIBING TO ITS SHARE CAPIT AL. THE FACTS FURNISHED ON RECORD BY THE SHARE APPLICANT, IN MY OPINION, CLEAR LY PROVE THEIR SOURCE OF FUNDS, AND ITS CAPACITY FOR MAKING SUCH PAYMENTS AN D ACCORDINGLY, THE CRITERIA OF, ITS CREDITWORTHINESS IS PROVED. IT IS ALSO OBSE RVED THAT THE SHARE SUBSCRIBER IN ITS REPLY TO THE STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED U/S 13 1 OF THE ACT, FURNISHED COPIES OF ITS INCOME TAX ACKNOWLEDGMENT EVIDENCING FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN BY THEM, COPIES OF ITS AUDITED ACCOUNTS INCLUDING BALA NCE SHEETS WHEREIN SUCH INVESTMENTS MADE BY THEM IN THE SUBSCRIPTION OF SHA RE CAPITAL ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT IS DULY REFLECTED AND ALSO COPIES OF ITS BANK STATEMENTS FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD FROM WHICH SUCH SUBSCRIPTION MONIES WERE PAID BY THEM AND COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT ADVISE RECEIVED BY THEM FROM THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF SHARES ALLOTTED TO THEM. THE RETURN OF ALLOTMENTS A S WELL AS THE ANNUAL RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 FILED BY THE APPEL LANT WITH THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, FURTHER CATEGORICALLY PROVES THE FACT: OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES-TO THE SHARE APPLICANT . ITA NO.757/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO WD-1(1) KOL. VS. M/S DAZZLE PR OJECTS PVT. LTD. PAGE 4 IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE NET WORTH OF THE SH ARE APPLICANT, AS DISCLOSED IN ITS BALANCE SHEETS, FAR EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT OF INVE STMENTS MADE BY THEM IN THE SHARES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. IT IS ACCORDIN GLY OBSERVED THAT IT ADEQUATELY PROVE THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS TO MAKE INV ESTMENT IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE APPELLANT. THE AFORESAID FACTS UNDER LINED BY EVIDENCES CLEARLY PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS, THEIR C APACITY AND SOURCE OF FUNDS, AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN R ELATION TO THE SHARE CAPITAL ISSUED BY' THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS SUBSCRIBED TO B Y THE SHARE APPLICANT. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ONUS, WHICH LAY ON THE APPELLANT, IN RELATION TO S. 68 OF THE ACT, HAS BEEN DULY DISCHARGED BY IT AND NOTHING FUR THER REMAINS TO BE PROVED BY IT ON THE ISSUE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT IS NOT PROVED AND/OR THAT THE I NTRODUCTION OF SHARE CAPITAL BY THE SHARE APPLICANT IS NOT GENUINE AND/OR THE SO URCE OF INVESTMENT WAS NOT FULLY EXPLAINED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO. SINC E THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR DISCHARGING OF BURDEN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 68 . OF THE ACT ARE MET WITH ADEQUATE EVIDENCES, THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SUCH PR ETEXT DESERVES TO BE DELETED. I ALSO FIND FROM THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY AS WELL AS THAT OF APPELLANT COMPANY THAT THOSE ARE NOT: ME RELY PAPER COMPANY. THE COMPANIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCE & INVESTMENTS. THE GROSS REVENUE OF LAKSHMIRAMAN INVESTMENT &.FINANCE LTD AS PER WAS RS.8,,89,37,551/- AND THAT OF APPELLANT COMPANY WAS RS.9,33,189/-. THE ASSESSEE IS ALMOST 100% SUBSIDIARY OF LAKSHMIRAMAN INVESTMENTS & FINANCE LTD AND HAS COMMON DIRECTOR WHO APPEARED U/S 131 AN D HAS CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS & EXPLAINED TILE SAME AS WELL. I FIND THAT THE SHARE PREMIUM IS JUSTIFIED AS THE BOOK VALUE PER SHARE OF THE APPELL ANT COMPANY IS RS 500. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE AR. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, I HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S. 68 BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THESE CIRCUM STANCES. ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT DELETION OF REMAINING ADDITION OF RS.1,32,00,000/- MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. THUS, THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.4,53,00,000/- IS DI RECTED TO BE DELETED. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED . 3. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL CONTENTIONS. THE ASSESSEES DETAILED PAPER BOOK FORMING PART OF RECO RD COMPRISING OF COPY OF FORM-2 AND FORM-5 FILED BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF COM PANIES, BANK STATEMENT, AUDITED ACCOUNTS, SEC. 142(1) NOTICE DATED 02.09.20 14 & REPLY, YET ANOTHER SEC. 142(1) NOTICE, SEC. 131(1) SUMMONS AND LETTER NO.1214 ALL DATED 13.02.2015, THE TAXPAYERS REPLY DATED 23.02.2015, ASSESSMENTS ORDER-SHEET ENTRIES, LETTER DATED 22.11.2014 FILED BEFORE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-I ALONGWITH SUMMONS U/S 131 DATED 05.11.2014, DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR SHARE ITA NO.757/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO WD-1(1) KOL. VS. M/S DAZZLE PR OJECTS PVT. LTD. PAGE 5 APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-1 1, SOURCES OF PAYMENT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TO APPELLANT CO., AUDITED A CCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEES HOLDING CO. M/S LAKSHMIRAMAN INVESTMENT & FINANCE L TD. AS ON 31.03.2011 & 31.03.2012, ITS CORRESPONDING LEDGER ACCOUNTS IN AP PELLANT-COMPANY FOR FINANCIAL YEAR(S) 2010-11 AND 2011-12 AS WELL AS VA RIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS; STANDS PERUSED. 4. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY C ONTENDS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION / PREMIUM ADDITION AMOUNTING TO 4,53,00,000/-. HE INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER DATED 23.03.2015 TO THIS EFFECT QUOTING THE ASSESSI NG OFFICERS RELIANCE ON HON'BLE APEX COURTS DECISION IN CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) AND S UMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (1995) 80 TAXMANN.COM 89/214 ITR 801 (SC) IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED IN PROVING GENU INENESS / CREDITWORTHINESS OF ITS INVESTOR PARTI(ES) BY APPLYING HUMAN PROBABI LITY TEST. HE REITERATES THE SAID FINDINGS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING TO PLEAD FOR REVIVING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WHICH STAND DELETED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 5. THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND DRAWS STRONG SUPP ORT FROM THE CIT(A)S ACTION DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. IT FIRST OF ALL SUBMITS THAT THE IMPUGNED SHARE APPLICATION AMOUNT HAS COME FROM THE HOLDING COMPANY / SISTER CONCERN M/S LAKSHMIRAMAN INVESTMENT & FINANCE LTD. IN LIEU OF ALLOTMENT OF 90,600 SHARES. WE ARE TAKEN TO PAGE 3 OF THE CIT(A)S ORD ER MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE ALOTTEE COMPANY IN QUESTION ACTED AS ASSESSEES HO LDING COMPANY ON 31.03.2012. COUPLED WITH THIS, ALL THE RELEVANT DET AILS OF THE SAID INVESTOR(S) NAMELY ADDRESS PROOF, MEMORANDUM/ARTICLES OF ASSOCI ATION, NBFC CERTIFICATE, COPY OF ANNUAL RETURN TO ROC, COPIES OF FINANCIAL S TATEMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11, BANK STATEMENT, DETAILS SOURCE OF FUN D AS WELL AS EXPLANATION REGARDING THE PREMIUM PAID IS QUOTED IN SUPPORT DUR ING THE COURSE OF HEARING ITA NO.757/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO WD-1(1) KOL. VS. M/S DAZZLE PR OJECTS PVT. LTD. PAGE 6 BEFORE US. WE WISH MAKE IT CLEAR HERE THAT THIS IS NOT THE REVENUES CASE THAT CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DURING THE COURSE OF LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS MEANING THEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL THE SAID DETAILS OF ITS HOLDING COMPANY HAVING MADE THE IMPU GNED INVESTMENT IN SHARE CAPITAL DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT WHICH HAS N OWHERE NEITHER BEEN DEALT WITH NOR ADVERSELY COMMENTED IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER RUNNING INTO MERE TWO PAGES. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT BOTH THE ASS ESSEE AS WELL AS ITS HOLDING COMPANIES ARE ASSESSED IN THE SAME JURISDIC TION. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH COULD INDICATE THE DEPA RTMENTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE EVER DOUBTED THE ASSESSEES HOLDING COMPANYS SOURC ES IN ITS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6. THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK SUGGESTS THAT A SIMILA R ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE CAPITAL ADDITION IN CASE OF HOLDING COMPANY / SISTER CONCERN CAME UP BEFORE TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO.102/AHD/2014 IN DCIT VS. GYSCOAL ALLOYS LTD . DECIDED ON 06.04.2018 AGAINST THE REVENUE AS FOLL OWS:- 2. WE NOTICE AT THE OUTSET THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DEL ETED THE ABOVESTATED ADDITION OF SHARE APPLICATION/PREMIUM AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDE RATION ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS AS FOLLOWS: 2.2 APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION :- THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE AP PELLANT ARE REPRODUCED HERE UNDER:- 'THE ONE AND ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL EFF ECTIVELY IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.9,99,99,900/- U/S. 68 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE-3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS REPRO DUCED THE FACTS WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COMPLETE DETAILS AS CALLED F OR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN PARA-3.3 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WANTED TO VERIFY THE SHARE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED/INVESTED BY ONE GENERAL CAPITAL AND HOLDING COMPANY PVT. LTD. TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,99,99,900/-. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THEREFORE, ISSUED A SUMMONS U/S. 131 AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SA ME SHRI VIRAL SHAH APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PRODUCED ORIGINAL BANK STATEMENT OF GENERAL CAPITAL AND HOLDING COMPANY PVT. LTD. FR OM WHICH HE HAS ISSUED THE CHEQUES FOR SUBSCRIBING TO THE CAPITAL OF THE C OMPANY. INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NO CASH DEPOSIT STATED IN THE SAID B ANK STATEMENT, BANK ACCOUNT OR FOR THAT MATTER WHATSOEVER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID COMPANY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT LY MENTIONED THAT HE HAS NOTICED REGULARITY, A PATTERN, IN THE METHODOLOGY O F INFUSING CASH INTO THE ACCOUNTS AND WITHIN A SHORT WHILE AFTERWARDS WITHDR AWING SUMS TO PAY FOR THE SHARES. THE SAID PRINCIPAL OFFICER SHRI VIRAL SHAH FILED AUTHENTICATED PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL PAN CARD OF ALL SHAREHOLD ERS AND ALSO THAT OF THE COMPANY BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SURPRISINGLY MENT IONS ON PAGE-4 THAT THEY PRIMA FACIE ARE NOT FOUND CORRECT. . HE HAS ALSO FI LED THE CONFIRMATION OF ITA NO.757/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO WD-1(1) KOL. VS. M/S DAZZLE PR OJECTS PVT. LTD. PAGE 7 ACCOUNT, AUDITED ACCOUNTS, INCOME TAX RETURNS AND C OPY OF PAN CARD OF ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS OF GENERAL CAPITAL AND HOLDING COM PANY PVT LTD. HE, THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE INVESTMENT IS AN ACCOM MODATION ENTRY, IT IS A SHAM TRANSACTION AND THEREAFTER FROM PAGE 5 TO 8 RE PRODUCING VARIOUS DECISIONS CONCLUDED THAT THE ENTIRE SHARE APPLICATI ON MONEY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY FROM THE SAID GENERAL CAPITAL AND HOLDING COMPANY PVT. LTD. IS UNEXPLAINED INASMUCH AS THE PARTY WAS NOT I N DE-FACTOR EXISTENCE AND THUS HE ADDED THE SAME U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T. THE APPELLANT BEING DISSATISFIED AND AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING: (1) THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY REGIST ERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND THE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORP ORATION AND COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS ARE ENCLOSED AS PER PAGE 1 . THE APPELLANT ISSUED AN IPO AND ADMITTED TO DEALING ON THE NATION AL STOCK EXCHANGE AND BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE ON 27.10.2010 RAISING A CAPIT AL OF RS 54.67 CRORES FROM PUBLIC ISSUE. COPY OF THE LISTING NOTIFICATION / CIRCULAR OF NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE AND BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE IS ENCLOSED AT PAGE 2 TO 7 AND COPY OF ANNUAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31!F MA RCH, 2010 IS ENCLOSED FROM PAGE 8 TO 45. (2) THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX CO NTINUOUSLY AND TILL ASST. YEAR 2009-10 THERE HAS BEEN NO ADDITION WHATS OEVER LIKE THIS. FOR THIS ASST.YEAR 2010-11 THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER ISSUI NG NOTICE U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) ISSUED ITA NO. 102/AHD/14 [DCIT VS. GYSCOAL ALLOYS LTD. ] A.Y. 2010- 11 - 3 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THEREAFTER SUMMONS FOR INQUIR IES IN THE INVESTING COMPANY. COPIES OF WHICH ARE ENCLOSED AS PER PAGE 4 6 TO 69. (3) AS STATED ABOVE, THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF SAID INVESTING COMPANY GENERAL CAPITAL AND HOLDING COMPANY PVT. LTD. APPEARED AND FILED COPY OF ACCOUNTS IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE SAID COMPANY. COPY AS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE ENCL OSED HEREWITH FROM PAGE 70 TO 79. THE INVESTING COMPANY GENERAL CAPITAL AND HOLDING COMPANY PVT LTD HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT , AUDITED ACCOUNTS , INCOME TAX RETURNS AND COPY OF PAN CARD OF ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS OF INVESTING COMPANY VIDE LETTER DATED 18.03.2013 SUBMITTED ON 2 0.03.2013. COPY OF THE SAID LETTER IS ENCLOSED AS PER PAGE 80. (4) THE ASSESSEE ALSO ENCLOSES COPY OF ACCOUNT OF T HE SAID COMPANY IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND ALSO THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WHEREIN THE SHARE INVESTMENT OF RS.9,99,99,900/- RECEIVED FROM THE SAID COMPANY CLEARLY PROVING THAT THEY WERE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AS PER PAGE 81 TO 88. COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS, CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT AND PAN CARD OF THE SHAREHO LDERS OF THE SAID INVESTING COMPANY GENERAL CAPITAL AND HOLDING COMPA NY PVT LTD IS ENCLOSED AS PER PAGE 89 TO (5) THE APPELLANT HAS TO SUBMIT T HAT THE INVESTING COMPANY IS STILL HOLDING THE SHARES OF ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE ARE ATTACHING HEREWITH THE COPY OF THE DEMAT HOLDING STATEMENT DATED 04.09 .2013. OF THE INVESTING COMPANY I.E GENERAL CAPITAL AND HOLDING PVT LTD AS PER PAGE NO 120 TO 122. (6) THUS THE APPELLANT HAS TO SUBMIT THAT THE SAID PARTY INVESTING IN THE SHARES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS ALSO A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX IN CIRCLE 4 WITH PAN NO AADCG1059M THE S AID COMPANY CONFIRMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT HAS INVESTED IN THE APPELLANT COMPANY BY ISSUING ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. THE BANK S TATEMENT OF THIS ITA NO.757/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO WD-1(1) KOL. VS. M/S DAZZLE PR OJECTS PVT. LTD. PAGE 8 COMPANY CLEARLY PROVES THAT THERE IS NO CASH DEPOSI T WHATSOEVER. THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY CLEARLY PROVES T HAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. (7) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITIONS RE LYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS AS STATED IN PARA-3.8 OF THE ORDER, WHICH ARE NOT A T ALL RELEVANT AND APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT IS ENCLOSIN G HEREWITH FULL DECISION OF ALL THE CASES CITED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMIT S HOW THEY ARE JUST NOT APPLICABLE. (I) HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE (P) LTD. 342 /TR 769 (DELHI) IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED A CCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN GARB OF SHARE APPLICATION MONIES. ON INQUIRY BY ISS UING SUMMONS TWO PERSONS, NAMELY, M AND R DID NOT APPEAR. M AND R HA D GIVEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND LATER ON BY AFFIDAVITS RE FRACTED THE STATEMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NO ACCEPT THE AFFIDAVITS AND MADE THE ADDITIONS. BOTH MR. M AND R HAD APPEARED BEFORE A.D.I, AND ADM ITTED THAT THEY WERE ACTING AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDERS AND HAD GIVEN LIST OF 22 ITA NO. 102/AHD/14 [DCIT VS. GYSCOAL ALLOYS LTD. ] A.Y. 2010-11 - 4 COMPANIES. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ADDITION SUSTAINED W AS CONFIRMED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT. WHEREAS IN APPELLANT'S CASE THE DIRECTOR OF THE INV ESTING COMPANY, GENERAL CAPITAL AND HOLDING COMPANY PVT. LTD., APPEARED IN PERSON A ND CONFIRMED THE INVESTMENT GIVEN BY CHEQUE AND EXPLAINED THE SOURCE BY SHOWING BANK STATEMENT. (II) HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. N.R . PORTFOLIO (P) LTD. 29 TAXMANN.COM 291 (DELHI) IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS A SHARE BROKER AND CLAIMED THAT DURING THE YEAR IF RECEIVED CERTAIN AMOUNT FROM SEV EN SHARE APPLICANTS. ON INVESTIGATION IF WAS FOUND THAT THE SHARE APPLICATI ONS WERE RECEIVED ON 18-2-2004 BUT SHARES WERE SENT TO PARTIES ONLY ON 15-6-2004. DESP ITE ISSUE OF SUMMONS U/S. 131 PARTIES DID NOT ATTEND. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY TRANSACTIONS IN STOCK AND ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT SHOWED LARGE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS. ON FACTS THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED BY THE HIGH COUR T. AS AGAINST THIS IN APPELLANT'S CASE THE INVESTING C OMPANY IMMEDIATELY APPEARED WITHOUT SUMMONS AND SHOWED ALL THE DEPOSITS AND CRE DITS IN BANK ACCOUNT. NOT A SINGLE CASH DEPOSIT OR CASH WITHDRAWAL. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS TOTALLY WRONG IN MENTIONING THAT THERE ARE CASH WITHDRAWALS. IN FACT THE SOURCE OF FUND, IDENTIFY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS WERE PROVED BY THE INVESTING COMPANY. (III) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RUBY TRADERS & EXPORTERS LTD. 263 ITR 300 (CAL) HERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVE D THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUBSCRIPTION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN COURSE OF INQUIRY, NOTHING WAS DISCLOSED ABOUT IDENTITY OF THE SUBSCRIBERS. ADDITION MADE U/ S. 68, WHICH TRIBUNAL DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PA YEE CHEQUES. HIGH COURT CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT IDENTIFY OF THE SUBSCRIBER AND GENUINENESS DID NOT GET PROVED. IN APPELLANT'S CASE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CRED ITWORTHINESS ARE PROVED BEYOND DOUBT. (IV) ITAT DELHI BENCH 'C IN THE CASE OF ACI T VS. RAJEEV TANDON- 108 ITD 560 (DELHI). IN THIS CASE THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE AS GIFT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WANTED GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOUR TO MAKE SUCH BIG GIFT. BANK STATEMENT AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF DONOR TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS WAS NOT PROVED. IN ABSENCE OF ANY FINANCIAL CREDIBILITY OF THE GIFT, THE SAME WAS TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.757/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO WD-1(1) KOL. VS. M/S DAZZLE PR OJECTS PVT. LTD. PAGE 9 IN APPELLANT'S CASE THE APPELLANT IS A LISTED PUBLI C COMPANY AND HAD RECEIVED MORE THAN RS.54.67 CRORES AS PUBLIC ISSUE. THE INVESTING COMPANY, WHO HAD GIVEN RS.9,99,99,900/- HAD SHOWN ALL EVIDENCES OF ITA NO. 102/AHD/14 [DCIT VS. GYSCOAL ALLOYS LTD. ] A.Y. 2010-11 - 5 GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS WHICH COULD NOT BE DISPROVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (V) ITAT DELHI BENCH 'B' IN THE CASE OF MAGNET TRAD ING & CHIT FUND (P) LTD. VS. ACIT - 11 SOT 520 (DELHI) HERE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED RS. 11,75,000/- WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CA SH CREDIT U/S. 68. THE COMPANY FAILED TO PROVE AND ESTABLISHED IDENTITY OF THE SUBSCRIBER, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE AN Y INFORMATION REGARDING THE REAL OWNER OF THE SAME. ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER HELD JUSTIFIED. IN APPELLANT'S CASE THE APPELLANT IS A LISTED PUBLI C COMPANY AND HAD RECEIVED MORE THAN RS.54.67 CRORES AS PUBLIC ISSUE. THE INVESTING COMPANY, WHO HAD GIVEN RS.9,99,99,900/- HAD SHOWN ALL EVIDENCES OF GENUINE NESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS WHICH COULD NOT BE DISPROVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. (VI) ITAT DELHI BENCH 'A' IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SHRI SHYAM PULP & BOARD MILLS LTD. -17 SOT 13 (DELHI) THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WHICH HAD R AISED FRESH UNSECURED LOANS, WAS ASKED TO GIVE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE. BEFORE C.I.T. (APPEALS) ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF RA TION CARDS, AFFIDAVITS AND PAPERS OF ALLEGED CREDITORS. IN REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSING O FFICER STATED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS. HOWEVER, CIT (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION. HELD THE DELETI ON OF ADDITION BY CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS IDENTIFY OF LOAN CREDITORS AND CAP ACITY TO ADVANCE WERE NEVER PROVED. IN APPELLANT'S CASE THE APPELLANT IS A LISTED PUBLI C COMPANY AND HAD RECEIVED MORE THAN RS.54.67 CRORES AS PUBLIC ISSUE. THE INVESTING COMPANY, WHO HAD GIVEN RS.9,99,99,900/- HAD SHOWN ALL EVIDENCES OF GENUINE NESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS WHICH COULD NOT BE DISPROVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. (VII) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRECISION FINANCE (P) LTD. 208 ITR 465 (CAL) HUGE CASH CREDITORS WERE FOUND IN ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE BEING A LOAN FINANCING COMPANY. ASSESSEE GAVE ONLY INCOME TAX PA NO. AND FILE NO. OF CREDITORS. TRIBUNAL DELETED THE ADDITIO N ON THE GROUND THAT IDENTIFY OF CREDITORS WERE PROVED. HIGH COURT HELD THAT TRIB UNAL HAS FAILED TO FAKE IN TO ACCOUNT ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS, NAMELY; IDENTIFY , GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS. IN APPELLANT'S CASE, AS STATED ABOVE A/I THE THREE INGREDIENTS ARE PROVED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISREGARDED THE SAME AND WRON G/Y INTERPRETED THAT THERE IS A PATTERN AND METHODOLOGY OF INFUSING CASH IN TO THE ACCOUNT AND WITHIN A SHORT WHILE AFTERWARD WITHDRAWING THEM TO PAY FOR THE SHARES TO THE APPELLANT'S COMPANY. THESE ARE ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT AND UNTRUE STATEMENTS OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CAN BE SEEN ITA NO. 102/AHD/14 [DCIT VS. GYSCOAL ALLOYS LT D. ] A.Y. 2010-11 - 6 FROM THE BANK STATEMENT OF GENERAL CAPITAL AND HOLD ING PVT. LTD., COPIES OF WHICH ARE FILED. COPIES OF DECISIONS ARE ENCLOSED AS PER PAGE 123 TO 145. SUBMISSION: IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS MADE AN ADDITION, WHICH IS TOTALLY INCORRECT, ABSOLUTELY UNJUSTIFIED, ON WRONG FACTS, ON INCORRECT OBSERVATION AND FELLING UNTRUE THINGS ON PAPER. THE ASSESSEE HAS PR OVED IDENTIFY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS, PARTICULARLY SO BECAUSE MR. VIRAL SHAH, WHO APPEARED ON BEHALF OF GENERAL CAPITAL & HOLDING PVT. LTD. IS MANAGING DIR ECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. GENERAL CAPITA/ & HOLDING PVT. LTD. HAS FILED ITS I NCOME TAX RETURNS AND BALANCE ITA NO.757/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO WD-1(1) KOL. VS. M/S DAZZLE PR OJECTS PVT. LTD. PAGE 10 SHEETS WITH INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AND COMPANY LAW AUTHORITIES AND THE SAME ARE FULLY APPROVED AND ACCEPTED. THE APPELLANT FINALLY RELIES ON THE VERY WELL ESTABLISHED AND ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE THAT IF THE ASSESSEE DISCHAR GES ITS ONUS AND PROVES (IN OUR CASE BEYOND DOUBT) THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CR EDITWORTHINESS, THEN ADDITION JUST CANNOT BE MADE U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. (1) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. IN DRAJIT SINGH SURI REPORTED IN 33 TAXMAN 281 (GUJARAT) (2) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADE SH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PEOPLES GENERAL HOSPITAL LTD. 35 TAXMANN 444 (MP) ( 3) HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GANGESHWARI METAL (P) LTD. (2) REPORTED IN 30 TAXMANN 328 (DELHI) (4) ITAT LU CKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF VISHNU JAISWAL VS. CIT REPORTED IN 23 TAXMANN 374 ( LUCK)(TM) (5) ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF /TO VS. ANANT SHELTEES (P) LTD . REPORTED IN 20 TAXMANN 153 MUM) ' 2.3 DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,99,99,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SH ARE PREMIUM FROM M/S GENERAL CAPITAL AND HOLDING CO. PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD DURING THE YEAR. THE AO HELD THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WERE NOT PROVED BY THE APPELLANT AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE AD DITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT FOR THE ABOVE AMOUNT. THE APPELLANT HAS SUB MITTED THAT- ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS SUCH AS, CREDIT WORTHINESS, GENUINENESS AND THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT HAVE BEEN PROVED AND THEREFORE, THE ADDIT ION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASS ESSMENT RECORDS WERE ALSO OBTAINED FROM AO AND THE SAME HAVE ALSO BEEN EXAMIN ED BY ME TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS CORRECTLY. THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY, M/S G ENERAL CAPITAL HAS BEEN DULY CONFIRMED THE FACT OF MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE APPE LLANT COMPANY. THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE SAM E ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF THAT COMPANY. THE EXTRACTS OF TH E BANK STATEMENT WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE ME DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS BEFORE THE AO CLEARLY SHOW THAT THERE ARE NO CASH DEPOSITS AS MENTIONED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT TH E CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED AND SUBSEQUENTLY CHEQUE WERE ISSUED IS FACTUALLY INCORR ECT. THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY ALSO ATTENDED BEFORE AO AND ITA NO. 102/AHD/14 [DCI T VS. GYSCOAL ALLOYS LTD. ] A.Y. 2010-11 - 7 CONFIRMED THE FACT. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT BOTH THE COMPANIES, THAT IS THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS WELL AS THE SHARE APPLICANT ARE MANAGED BY THE SAME GROUP OF PERSONS. HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT PROOF IN RESPECT OF THE SHARE APPL ICATION NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THE AO HAS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANT FURTHER INVESTIGATION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT BUT NOT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE FOLLOWING REC ENT DECISIONS ON THE ISSUE ARE WORTH MENTIONING: - '1. CIT VS. SHREE RAMA MULTI TECH LTD. [20I3] 34 TA XMANN.COM 177 (GUJARAT) SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CASH CREDI T [SHARE APPLICATION MONEY]- ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 - WHETHER WHERE ASS ESSEE COMPANY HAD FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS OF RECEIPT OF SHARE APPL ICATION MONEY ALONG WITH SHARE APPLICATION FORMS, NAMES, ADDRESSES, PAN AND OTHER RELEVANT DETAILS OF ITA NO.757/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO WD-1(1) KOL. VS. M/S DAZZLE PR OJECTS PVT. LTD. PAGE 11 SHARE APPLICANTS, SHARE APPLICATION MONEY COULD NOT BE ADDED AS CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 - HELD, YES [PARA 7] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE] 2. CIT VS. HIMATSU BIMET LTD. [2011] 12 TAXMANN.COM 87 (GUJ) SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CASH CREDITS - ASSESSMEN T YEAR 1997-98 - ASSESSEE WAS A COMPANY, ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF BEAM/ESS STRIPS AND BEARINGS AT ITS FACTORY - IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE DETAILS OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY - SINCE ASSESSEE WAS AVOIDING GIVING DETAILS WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE, A SSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION TO ASSESSEE'S INCOME BY WAY OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY - ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UPHELD OR DER OF ASSESSING OFFICER - ON SECOND APPEAL. TRIBUNAL NOTICED THAT A SSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMATIONS FROM ALL SHARE APPLICANTS WITH DETAIL S OF SHARE CAPITAL PAID WHICH CONTAINED DETAILS SUCH AS FULL ADDRESSES, PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND TAX JURISDICTION OF DEPOSITORS - TRIBUNAL FURTHER N OTED THAT ALL PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY CHEQUES AND WERE CREDITED IN BANK ACCOU NT OF ASSESSEE: SHARE APPLICATION FORMS CONTAINED ALL DETAILS OF DEPOSITO RS; THEIR CONFIRMATIONS WERE CLEAR WITH ALL ADDRESSES; AND THAT THEY WERE ON DEP ARTMENTAL RECORDS AS TAXPAYERS - IN AFORESAID FACTUAL BACKGROUND, TRIBUN AL WAS OF VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENTLY DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN OF EXPLAINING SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY; ACCORDINGLY, IT DELETED IM PUGNED ADDITION - WHETHER, ON FACTS, IMPUGNED ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DID NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY SO AS TO WARRANT INTERFERENCE - HELD, YES, IN FAVOUR O F ASSESSEE 3. CIT VS. AMBUJA GINNING PRESSING AND OIL CO. (P.) LTD. [2011] 332 ITR 434 (GUJ) SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CASH CREDITS - ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 - WHETHER WHERE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SHAR E CAPITAL AND DEPOSITS FROM ITS SHAREHOLDERS AND HAD ESTABLISHED IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHAREHOLDER AND DEPOSITORS BY FURNISHING COMPLETE P ARTICULARS OF PAYMENTS LIKE CHEQUE NUMBERS AND DATE, EXTRACT OF BANK PASSB OOKS, EXPLANATION OF CREDITS APPEARING IN BANK PASSBOOK, IT COULD BE SAI D THAT ASSESSEE HAD PROVED GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION WARRANTING NO ADD ITION UNDER SECTION 68 - HELD, YES [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE]'. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE ABOVE MENTIONED JUDGEMENTS OF HONOURABLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS CLEARLY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY REC EIVED BY IT DURING THE ITA NO. 102/AHD/14 [DCIT VS. GYSCOAL ALLOYS LTD. ] A.Y. 201 0-11 - 8 YEAR. NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE S HARE APPLICANT MONEY HAD NO EMPLOYEES AND WAS BEING MANAGED FROM THE RESIDENTIA L PREMISES CAN BE MADE AS IT HAS SUFFICIENTLY SHOWN THAT IT HAS MADE INVESTMENT. IF THE AO HAD ANY DOUBTS ABOUT THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY HE COULD HAVE MADE FURTHER ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF THAT COMPANY, IN CASE THE S AME WAS ASSESSED WITH HIM, OR BY PASSING THE INFORMATION TO THE AO, IN CASE IT WAS N OT ASSESSED WITH HIM. IT APPEARS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY IS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX WITH THE PRESENT A.O. THEREFORE, HE IS DIRECTED TO PASS THIS INFORMATION TO THE AO OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION. THE AO HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENTS OF HON OURABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN VARIOUS CASES. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE CASES MENTIONED BY HIM. IN THE CASE OF NR PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD, SUPRA, THE SHARE APPLICANT DID NOT RESPOND TO SUMMONS BUT IN T HE PRESENT CASE THE DIRECTOR OF THE APPLICANT COMPANY ATTENDED AND GAVE THE DETAILS . IN THE CASE OF RAJEEV TANDON, SUPRA, THE ADDITION WAS UPHELD ON THE GROUND THAT N O OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS GIVEN. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS GI VEN COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT AS WELL AS THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF THE SHARE APPL ICANT COMPANY WHEREIN THE SHARE ITA NO.757/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO WD-1(1) KOL. VS. M/S DAZZLE PR OJECTS PVT. LTD. PAGE 12 APPLICATION INVESTMENT HAS BEEN DULY REFLECTED. SIM ILARLY THE OTHER CASES ARE ALSO DIFFERENT TO THE PRESENT CASE AND ARE ACCORDINGLY R ESPECTFULLY DISTINGUISHED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED DISCUSSION THE ADDIT ION, MADE BY THE A.O IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNT ING TO RS.9,99,99,900/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 3. LEARNED CIT(DR) VEHEMENTLY SUBMITS DURING THE CO URSE OF HEARING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION IN QUESTION FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAME IS IN THE NATURE OF A SHAM TRANSACTION BEING A N ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. SHE SEEKS TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT THE GROUP INVESTOR IS A PAPER COMPANY BEING RUN FROM A HOUSE ONLY WITHOUT ANY EMPLOYEE. SHE THEN QUOTES ASSESSMENT FINDINGS THAT THE SHARE ALLOTMENTS IN QUESTION IS IN THE NATURE OF A PRIVATE PLACEMENT WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS SO AS TO GET OUT OF RIGOR OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. CASE LAW ACIT VS. N AKODA FASHION PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1716/AHD/2012 DECIDED ON 18.08.2016 RESTORING AN ALLEGED IDENTICA L ADDITION IN CASE OF SHELL COMPANIES AS WELL AS HONBLE APEX COU RTS JUDGMENTS IN SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) AND CIT VS. DURGA P RASAD MORE (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) IS ALSO REFERRED TO IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUE S SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SEEKING TO REVIVE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 4. LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER H AND PLACES STRONG RELIANCE UPON THE CIT(A)S ABOVE EXTRACTED FINDINGS DELETING THE IMPUGNED ITA NO. 102/AHD/14 [DCIT VS. GYSCOAL ALLOYS LTD. ] A.Y. 2010-11 - 9 ADDITION. HIS CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY P ROVED ALL THREE COMPONENTS OF IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE S HARE APPLICATION/PREMIUM IN QUESTION TO HAVE COME FROM THE GROUP ENTITY HEREINA BOVE ALONGWITH ALL OF ITS NECESSARY DETAILS. HE THEN SEEKS TO AFFIRM THE LOWE R APPELLATE FINDINGS DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 5. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE SOLE ISSUE BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS ABOUT CORRECTNESS OF THE IMPUGNED SECTION 68 ADDITION OF RS.9,99,99,900/- AS MADE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND DELETED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE REV ENUES CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY DISPUTED THE GENUINEN ESS / CREDITWORTHINESS ELEMENT IN THE SAID SUM WHICH IS CONTESTED AT THE ASSESSEES B EHEST. WE PROCEED IN THIS BACKDROP OF FACTS TO NOTICE FIRST OF ALL THAT THE I DENTITY OF THE INVESTOR ENTITY M/S. GENERAL CAPITAL AND HOLDING COMPANY PVT. LTD. (SUPR A) IS NOT IN DISPUTE. AND ALSO THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID INVESTOR ENTITY ARE GROUP CONCERNS HAVING COMMON DIRECTORS. THE FIRST COMPONENT OF IDENTITY T HEREFORE VIS--VIS SECTION 68 OF THE ACT DULY STANDS SATISFIED. IT IS EVIDENT THEREA FTER THAT THE ASSESSEES RELEVANT PAPER BOOKS FORMING PART OF RECORD BEFORE US CONTAI N ALL NECESSARY DETAILS OF ITS COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION ALONGWITH LISTING N OTIFICATION/CIRCULAR OF NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE AND BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE, ITS RETURN AND COMPUTATION FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WITH TAX AUDIT REPORT, AUD ITORS REPORT, AUDITED ACCOUNTS, ITS REPLIES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE INVESTOR ENTITY IN IT S BOOKS ALONGWITH BANK STATEMENT INDICATING THE MONEY IN QUESTION TO HAVE COME THROU GH BANKING CHANNEL, REPLY TO ASSESSING OFFICERS NOTICE ISSUED U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT DATED 09.01.2013 ALONGWITH NECESSARY CONSEQUENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE DATED 18.01. 2013 AT PAGES 94 & 95, ITS LEDGER MAINTAINED IN INVESTOR ENTITYS BOOKS PAGE 9 6, BANK STATEMENT PAGE 97, SUMMONS ISSUED U/S.131(1A) TO INVESTOR ENTITY AS WE LL AS ITS DETAILS OF PAN CARD, AUDITED ACCOUNTS, INCOME TAX RETURNS, CONFIRMATION, SHARE HOLDERS DETAILS, DEMAT STATEMENTS OF THE INVESTOR ENTITY, INSPECTORS INQU IRY REPORT, MR. VIRAL SHAHS STATEMENT (SUPRA) RECORDED DURING SCRUTINY IN SUPPO RT OF THE ITA NO. 102/AHD/14 [DCIT VS. GYSCOAL ALLOYS LTD.] A.Y. 2010-11 - 10 IMPUGNED INVESTMENT; RESPECTIVELY, SUFFICIENTLY IND ICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO SUPPORT ITS CASE OF HAVING RECEIVED THE INV ESTMENT IN QUESTION FROM THE GROUP ITA NO.757/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO WD-1(1) KOL. VS. M/S DAZZLE PR OJECTS PVT. LTD. PAGE 13 ENTITY ONLY. THE REVENUES CASE IS THAT ALL THE SAI D DETAILS FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS ELEMENT. WE SEE NO REASON TO CONCUR WITH THIS ARGUMENT. MORE PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THA T IT IS THE ASSESSEES GROUP COMPANY HAVING COMMON DIRECTOR(S) WHO HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT. LEARNED CIT(DR) AT THIS STAGE SOUGHT TO REITERATE A SSESSING OFFICERS CONCLUSION THAT THIS INVESTOR COMPANY HAS ADOPTED CASH DEPOSIT ROOT TO REINVEST THE SAME IN ASSESSEES STAKE HOLDING. WE DO NOT SEE ANY MATERIA L ON RECORD TO AGREE TO THE INSTANT PLEA. WE AFFORDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE REVENUE TO FILE ON RECORD ANY SUCH COGENT MATERIAL INDICATING M/S. GENERAL CAPITA L AND HOLDING COMPANY PVT. LTD. TO HAVE FIRST DEPOSITED CASH SUMS FOLLOWED BY ITS R EINVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES SHARE HOLDING. THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO INDICATE ANY SUC H MATERIAL. 6. MS. VASUNDHRA UPMANYU AT THIS STAGE REITERATES T HE ABOVE CASE LAW IN REVENUES FAVOUR (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DECISION IN NAKODA FASHION PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) DEALS WITH CASE WHEREIN T HE INVESTOR COMPANY(IES) HAD TURNED OUT TO BE SHELL ENTITY WITHOUT ANY GENUINENE SS/CREDITWORTHINESS. LATTER TWO CASE LAWS IN SUMATI DAYAL AND DURGA PRASAD MORE (SU PRA) SETTLE THE LAW REGARDING GENUINENESS OF AN EXPLANATION IN LIGHT OF HUMAN PRO BABILITY AND APPRECIATION OF RELEVANT DETAILS ON RECORD. THE REVENUE FAILS TO IN DICATE ANY MISAPPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AT THE CIT(A)S BEHEST DURING THE COURSE O F LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. WE RATHER FIND THAT THE CIT(A)S DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS THE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO ASSESSEES GROUP CONCERNS A SSESSING OFFICER SUFFICIENTLY PROTECT REVENUES INTEREST SO FAR AS THE IMPUGNED A DDITION IS CONCERNED. LEARNED CIT.D.RS. FURTHER RELIANCE ON ALL THE CASE LAWS DI SCUSSED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ALSO WITHOUT ANY SIGNIFICANCE SINCE THERE IS NO INS TANCE THEREIN DEALING WITH A GROUP ENTITY HAVING INVESTED IN CONCERNED ASSESSEES STAK E HOLDING. THE SAID CASE LAW IS THEREFORE HELD TO BE NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE IN H AND. WE CONCLUDE IN LIGHT OF ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE ALL THREE COMPONENTS OF IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTH INESS OF IMPUGNED SHARE ITA NO. 102/AHD/14 [DCIT VS. GYSCOAL ALLOYS LTD.] A.Y. 2010-11 - 11 APPLICATION/PREMIUM AMOUNT OF RS.9,99,99,900/- TO HAVE COME FROM ITS GROUP COMPANY M/S. GENERAL CAPITAL AND HOLDING COMPANY PV T. LTD. COUPLED WITH THIS, WE MUST ALSO OBSERVE THAT IT HAS SUCCESSFULLY PRODUCED ITS COMMON DIRECTOR MR. SHAH (SUPRA) BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONGWITH ALL NECESSARY DETAILS AND CONFIRMATION DESPITE THE FACT THAT SUCH A PERSONAL APPEARANCE IS REQUIRED AS PER SECTION 68 (FIRST PROVISO) INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 APPLICAB LE W.E.F. 01.04.2013 ONLY WHEREAS WE ARE DEALING WITH ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 . WE THUS AFFIRM THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS UNDER CHALLENGE. THE REVENUES SOLE SUBSTA NTIVE GRIEVANCE IS ACCORDINGLY DECLINED. THE REVENUES TAX APPEAL NO. 1180 OF 2018 IN HON'B LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AGAINST THE SAID DECISION STOOD DISMISSED ON 01.10. 2018 AS FOLLOWS:- THE ISSUE PERTAINS TO THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED A SUMS OF RS.9.99 CRORES [ROUNDED OFF] IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE AID OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT FOR SHORT]. CIT[A] DELETED SUCH ADDITION PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED THE SOURCE, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACT IONS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTORS. IN FURTHER DETAI LED CONSIDERATION, THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE VIEW OF CIT[A], MAKING THE F OLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- ITA NO.757/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO WD-1(1) KOL. VS. M/S DAZZLE PR OJECTS PVT. LTD. PAGE 14 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,99,99,900/- ON ACCOU NT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM FROM M/S GENERAL CAPITAL AND HOLDING CO. PVT. LTD. AHMEDABAD DURING THE YEAR. THE AO HEL D THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TIONS WERE NOT PROVED BY THE APPELLANT AND ACCORDINGLY MADE TH E ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT FOR THE ABOVE AMOUNT. T HE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THREE INGREDIENTS SUCH AS CR EDITWORTHINESS, GENUINENESS AND THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT HAVE BEEN PROVED AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO. IT CAN THUS BE SEEN THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS BASED ON APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. CIT[A] AND THE TRIBUNAL CONC URRENTLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGES ITS BASIC ONUS. THE INVESTORS HAVES CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION S. SUCH TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT THROUGH THE BANKING C HANNEL. THE DIRECTOR OF THE INVESTING COMPANY HAD ALSO APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIO NS. THE CIT[A] AND THE TRIBUNAL ALSO DID NOT CONFIRM THE AS SESSING OFFICERS FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTAB LISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OR GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS . 7. MR. CHOUDHURY AT THIS STAGE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSEES HOLDING COMPANY HAD NOWHERE PUT IN APPEARANCE TO EX PLAIN ITS IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS REGARDING THE IMPU GNED SHARE APPLICATION/ PREMIUM. WE FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN REVENUES INSTANT ARGUMENTS. WE HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ASSESSME NT FINDINGS NOWHERE INDICATE AS TO WHETHER HE HAD EVER CONCLUDED THAT T HE SAID HOLDING COMPANY HAD NOT TURNED UP TO EXPLAIN ALL THE THREE INGREDIE NTS OF ITS SHARE CAPITAL. THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS EXTRACTED HEREINABOVE MAKE IT CLE AR THAT THE COMMON DIRECTOR OF THESE TWO ENTITIES HAD DULY PUT IN APPE ARANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO NEVER PIN-POINTED ANY SPECIFIC DISCREPA NCY IN THE CORRESPONDING DETAILS FILED. COUPLED WITH THIS, IT HAS COME ON RE CORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CREDITED / RECEIVED THE ENTIRE SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY IN THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR (SUPRA). BE THAT AS IT MAY, WE CONCL UDE THAT CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE IMPUGNED UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT ADDITI ON IN THE NATURE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY / PREMIUM MONEY COMING FROM ASSES SEES HOLDING ITA NO.757/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO WD-1(1) KOL. VS. M/S DAZZLE PR OJECTS PVT. LTD. PAGE 15 COMPANY M/S LAKSHMIRAMAN INVESTMENT & FINANCE LTD. IN VIEW DETAILED SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FORMING PART OF RECORDS. THE RE VENUE FAILS IN ITS SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND THEREFORE. 8. THIS REVENUES APPEAL ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 03/ 05/2019 SD/- SD/- ( %) (' %) (DR.A.L. SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 03 / 05 /201 9 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ITO WARD-1(1), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQ. R.NO .06, 7 TH FL, KOLKATA-69 2. /RESPONDENT-M/S DAZZLE PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,14/3, CHA TTAWALA LANE, 2 ND FLOOR. KOL-12 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 7 ''3, 3, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ 3,