Lexplosion Solution Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 15(2), New Delhi

ITA 7762/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4692 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Source of fund; Accommodation entries; Competent authority; Documents seized; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 131; 68; 148; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R.K PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.7726/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S. SHISHYA EDUTECH (P) LTD. 4346/4-C, 1 ST FLOOR, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ, NEW DELHI -02 C/O SHRI S. K. SAHPATHI HOUSE NO.579, SECTOR -16A, FARIDABAD -121002 PAN NO. AAHCS9225R VS ITO WARD 23(2) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. P. C. YADAV, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SH. S. L. ANURAGI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 20/02/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/04/2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2017 OF THE CIT(A)-28, NEW DELHI RELATING TO A. Y. 2009-10. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SERVICE SECTOR S UCH AS COMPUTER TRAINING/ EDUCATIONAL / COACHING INSTITUTE . IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.09.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.12,05,779/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143 (1 ) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. SUBSEQUENTLY INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED F ROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION IN THE CASE OF SH. SURENDER KUMAR JAIN GROUP OF ITA NO.7726/DEL/2017 2 CASES AND THE POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE SAID GROUP WAS INVOLVED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRI ES. THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALSO APPEARS IN THE LI ST AS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AM OUNT OF RS.30 LACS IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL / SHARE PREMIUM F ROM COMPANIES / ENTITIES ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACC OMMODATION ENTRIES IN LIEU OF CASH PAYMENT BY THE BENEFICIARY INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE BY CHARGING COMMISSION. ACCORDINGLY, REOPE NING PROCEEDING WERE INITIATED U/S. 147 OF THE IT ACT , 1961 BY RECORDING REASONS AND AFTER OBTAINING SANCTION OF T HE COMPETENT AUTHORITY U/S 151 OF THE IT ACT. THE NOTICE U/S 14 8 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 11.03.2016. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 11.04.2016 SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN ALREADY FILED BE TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148. D 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 30 LACS FROM M/S. VIP LEASING & FINANCE PVT. LTD. HE DEPUTED HIS INSPECTOR TO SERVE SUMMON U/S 131 OF TH E IT ACT DATED 12.12.2016 TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY AT THE ADDRESSES AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE INSPECTOR REPOR TED THAT THE ADDRESSES GIVEN BY THE COMPANY WAS FAKE AND NO SUCH COMPANY ACTUALLY EXISTS AND IT IS JUST A PAPER COMPANY INVO LVED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER OBSERVED FROM THE BALANCESHEET OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS R ECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.2,25,000/- IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. YEAR ENDING 31.03.2008 AND IN THE CURRENT YEAR I.E. 31.0 3.2009 IT HAS RECEIVED RS. 30 LACS AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY P & L ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL Y EAR 2008-09. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT ASSESSEE WILLFULLY DID NOT FILE ITS P & L ITA NO.7726/DEL/2017 3 ACCOUNT. IN ABSENCE OF THE SAME IT IS NOT ASCERTAI NABLE THAT THE ASSESEE HAS DONE ANY BUSINESS AND NO INCOME FROM OP ERATION HAS BEEN SHOWN. THIS ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R GIVES A FAIR BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN INCOME HAS BEEN ROUT ED THROUGH BALANCESHEET. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED IN ITS OWN HAND IN VIEW OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE FOUND DURING THE SE ARCH OPERATION AT THE PREMISES OF SH. S. K. JAIN WHEREIN THERE IS A CLEAR MENTION OF M/S. VIP LEASING & FINANCE LTD., W HERE THE NAME OF THE ASSESSE COMPANY APPEARS. FURTHER THERE IS ALSO MENTION OF THE PAY ORDER NUMBER, DATE OF PAY ORDER NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF RS.30 LACS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY GENUINE TRANSACTIO NS WITH THE SAID PARTY AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.30 LACS IS ASSESSE S OWN FUNDS OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME, ROUTED THROUG H THE NAME OF THE SAID ENTRY OPERATOR. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISI ONS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E NOVADAYA CASTLES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT AND NOVA PROMOTERS AND FI NLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED AND DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AD DITION OF RS.30 LACS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDI TY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS THE ADDITION ON MERIT. SO FAR AS THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE REOP ENING THE ASSESSMENT HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND AND FORMED HIS BELIEF ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATIO N WING OF THE DEPARTMENT WHICH IS INVALID. FURTHER RELYING ON VA RIOUS DECISIONS ITA NO.7726/DEL/2017 4 IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS VOID IN LIEU OF VARIOUS INFIRMITIES. 5. SO FAR AS THE MERIT OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS TO SU BSTANTIATE THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICA NT AND THE GENUINESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THEREFORE, NO ADDITI ON IS CALLED FOR U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. 6. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT SATISFIED W ITH THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED TH E GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE FURTHER UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT ON MERIT. 7. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING FOLLOWING GRO UNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N HOLDING THAT THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE IT ACT BY THE A. O. WAS VALID IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FULFIL THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AS PER SETTLED LAW IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3000000/- TO THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER AL L OR ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ADD ANY OTHE R GROUND OF APPEAL. ITA NO.7726/DEL/2017 5 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSEESSEE AT THE OUTSET STRONGLY CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE AC TION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE FILED HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE NOTICE U/ S 148 OF THE IT ACT ON 31.08.2016 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISPOSE D OF THE OBJECTIONS VIDE ORDER DATED 19.12.2016. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 28.12.2016 AND THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN THE PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS TO THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED THE ORDER, THEREFORE, THE ASSES SMENT ORDER IS NULL AND VOID. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO T PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE OBJECTIONS O F THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES HAVE ALSO ACCORDE D THEIR SANCTION IN A MECHANICAL MANNER WITHOUT DUE APPLICA TION OF MIND. REFERRING TO PAGE 27 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE THE APPROVAL HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ADDITIONAL CIT AND DCIT, HE S UBMITTED THAT THESE ARE NOT PROPER APPROVAL. RELYING ON VARIOUS D ECISIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BAS ED ON REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING AND WITHOUT INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SINCE THE ORDER H AS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE OBJE CTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE FINAL ORDER WAS PASSE D WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO WEEKS FROM DATE OF THE DISPOSAL OF TH E OBJECTIONS AS AGAINST MANDATORY FOUR WEEKS, THEREFORE, THE REASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NULL AND VOID. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE IN YET ANOTHER A LTERNATE ARGUMENT SUBMITTED THAT IF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS BELONG ING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF SH. S.K. J AIN DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THEN THE CORRECT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACTION U/S 153 C AND 153 A AND NOT U/S 148/147. SI NCE THE ITA NO.7726/DEL/2017 6 ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS TAKEN REC OURSE OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 147 AS AGAINST 153 (C), THEREF ORE, SUCH REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO SHOULD BE HELD AS VOI D AB INITIO. 10. SO FAR AS THE MERIT OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED, T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSSESEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 153 C AND 153 A OF THE IT ACT 1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN THE CASE OF M/S. VIP LEASING & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 125 AND 126 OF THE PAPER BOOK. REFE RRING TO THE SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS AS ON 31.03.2009 IN THE CAS E OF M/S. VIP LEASING & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT 122 AND 124 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE SAME AND SUBMITTED THAT AT SR. NO. 132 THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TOWARDS THE INVESTMENT OF RS.30 LA CS IN THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. REFERRING TO PAPER BOOK PAGES FROM 108 TO 126 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID COMPANY HAS DULY DISCLOSED IN ITS BALANCESHEET REGARDING THE INVESTM ENT IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED U/S 153 C BY THE ACIT, CC-23, NEW DELHI AND NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. THEREFORE, WHEN THE INVESTOR IS IDENTIFIABLE SINCE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED U/.S 153 C AND 153 A OF THE IT ACT, 196 1 AND SAID INVESTOR HAS DULY DISCLOSED IN ITS BALANCESHEET REG ARDING INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALONGWITH SO MAN Y OTHER COMPANIES AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE HAS BEEN DRAWN I N THE HANDS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANY AND SINCE THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, THEREFORE, ADDIT ION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THESE DOCUMENTS WERE VERY M UCH AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, HOWEVER, T HESE WERE ITA NO.7726/DEL/2017 7 COMPLETELY IGNORED AND ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 11. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THA T INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED IN THE INSTANT CASE FROM THE INVESTIGA TION WING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.30 LACS FROM AN ENTITY BELONGING TO THE S. K. JAIN GROUP OF COMPANIES WHO ARE ENGAGED I N PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS AS KED TO FURNISH DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT AND THE GENUINESS OF THE TRANSACTION, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WI TH EVIDENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT AND GENUIN ESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 12. RELYING ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW SHOULD BE UPHELD ON VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS THE ADDITION ON MERIT :- 1. SUDHIR KUAMR SHARMA (HUF) VS. CIT 46 TAXMANN.COM 340 (PUNJAB & HARYANA) [2014] 224 TAXMAN 178 (PUNJA B & HARYANA) 2. CIT VS. N. TARIKA PROPERTIES INVESTMENT (P) LTD. [2013] 40 TAXMANN.COM 525 (DELHI) [2014] 221 TAXMANN 14 (DELHI)/ [2014] CTR 472 (DELHI). 3 N TARIKA PROPERTIES INVESTMENT (P) LTD. VS. CIT [ 2014] 51 TAXMANN.COM 387 (SC)/ [2014] 227 TAXMAN 373 (SC) 4. CIT VS. NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE (P) LTD. (18 TAXMANN.COM 217, 206 TAXMAN 207, 342 ITR 169, 252 C TR 187 ITA NO.7726/DEL/2017 8 5. CIT VS. ULTRA MODERN EXPORTS (P.) LTD. (40 TAXMANN.COM 458, 220 TAXMAN 165) 6. SUMAN GUPTA VS. CTI (2013 LL- 0122-69) (SUPRE ME COURT) 7. PCIT VS. BIKRAM SINGH [ITA NO.55/2017] (DELHI) 8. BLESSING CONSTRUCTION VS. ITO [2013] 32 TAXMANN.COM366 (GUJARAT) /[2013] 9. TOBY CONSULTANTS (P.) LTD. VS. CIT [2010] 324 IT R 338 (DELHI) 10. SANRAJ ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (ITA 79/20 16) (DELHI) 11. PCIT VS. PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATION (P.) LTD. (201 7- TIOL-253 SC-IT) 12. PCIT VS. PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATION (P.) LTD. [201 7] 79 TAXMANN.COM409 (DELHI) [2017] 392 ITR 444 (DELHI) 13. INDU LATA RANGWALAL VS. DCIT [2017] 80 TAXMANN .COM 102 (DELHI)/[2016] 384 ITR 337 (DELHI)/[2016] 286 C TR 474 (DELHI) 14. THAKORBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL VS. ITO [2017] 78 TAXMANN.COM 409 (DELHI) /[2017] 392 ITR 444 (DELHI) . 15. ARAVALI INFRAPOWER LTD. VS. DCIT (2017-TIOL-42- SC-IT) 16. YOGENDRAKUMAR GUPTA VS. ITO (51 TAXMANN.COM 383 ) (SC)/[2014] 227 TAXMAN 374 (SC) 17. RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. VS. ITO AND OTHERS [ 236 ITR 34] 18. R. K. MALHOTRA ITO VS. KASTURBHAI LALBHAI [1977 ] 109 ITR 537 (SC) 19. CIT VS. P. V.S. BEEDIES (P.) LTD. [1999] 103 TA XMAN 294 (SC)/[1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) /[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) ITA NO.7726/DEL/2017 9 20. ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P.) LTD. [2007] 161 TAXMAN 316 (SC) / [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007 ] 210 CTR 30 (SC) 21. YUVRAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA [315 ITR 84] (SC) 22. ANKIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. DCIT [2017] 7 8 TAXMANN.COM 58 (GUJARAT). 13. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE ME. I FIND THE CASE OF THE ASSESSSEE WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF THE R EPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING THAT THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AP PEARS IN THE LIST OF BENEFICIARIES WHO HAVE OBTAINED ACCOMMODATI ON ENTRIES FROM COMPANIES CONTROLLED BY SH. S. K. JAIN GROUP O F CASES WHO ARE BASICALLY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION EN TRIES FOR COMMISSION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE ACCORDING TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER COULD NOT SATISFY HIM REGARDING THE IDENTITY AND CR EDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT AND GENUINE OF THE TRANSACTI ONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.30 LACS TO TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED F OR SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM M/S. VIP LEASING & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED. I FIND THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BOTH ON MERIT A S WELL AS VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 14. SO FAR AS THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS ARE CONCERNED, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND, THEREFORE, I UPHOLD THE SAME. I FIND THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE, AFTER OBTAINING THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION ITA NO.7726/DEL/2017 10 WING HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND TAKEN ONE APPROVAL OF THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES. HE HAS ALSO DISPOSED OF THE OBJECTION S. SINCE, THE RE- REOPENING WAS BASED ON SPECIFIC INFORMATION. NO NOT ICE U/S 153 C IS ALSO REQUIRED. THE VARIOUS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE WI THOUT ANY MERIT AND THEREFORE, THE LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS DIS MISSED. 15. SO FAR AS THE MERIT OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED I FIND FROM THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S 153 C/153A IN THE CASE OF M/S. VIP LEASING & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON PAGES 125 AND 126 OF THE PAPER BOOK, T HAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THAT CASE HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S. 153 C AND 153 A. THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN AT 2 09, 2 ND FLOOR, SUNDER KIRAN BUILDING, WEA, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI W ITH PAN NO. AAACV0475F. THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND THE PAPER BOOK IN THE CASE OF M/S. VIP LEASING & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMI TED DISCLOSED THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SCHEDULE OF INVESTM ENT AT SR. NO. 132 ACCORDING TO WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RS.30 LACS HAS BEEN INVESTED IN SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THERE A RE ALSO VARIOUS INVESTMENTS IN SHARES OF DIFFERENT COMPANIE S. NO ADVERSE INFERENCE HAS BEEN DRAWN IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 15 3C/153A. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED U/S. 153 C IN THE CASE OF M/S. VIP LEASING & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED AND T HE COPY OF THE SAME WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HOW EVER, THE SAME WAS COMPLETELY IGNORED AND ADDITION HAS BEEN M ADE U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. AS PER PROVISION OF THE U/S. 68 OF T HE IT ACT THE ONUS IS ALWAYS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT AND THE GE NUINESS OF THE ITA NO.7726/DEL/2017 11 TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS FILED THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHARE APPLICANT I.E. M/S. VIP LEASING & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED. SINCE THE ASSES SMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED U/S. 153 C AND 153 A, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A NON EXISTING COMPANY OR A BOGUS COMPA NY. SINCE THIS VITAL EVIDENCE WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER OR CIT(A) ALTHOUGH THE SAME WAS VERY MUCH AVAILABLE WI TH THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, THEREFORE, I DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE AS SESSMENT RECORD OF M/S. VIP LEASING & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED FROM THEIR ASSESSING OFFICER AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE. I HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUN DS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSE. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.04.2019. SD/- (R.K PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* DATE:- 01.04.2019 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI ITA NO.7726/DEL/2017 12 DATE OF DICTATION 05.03.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 01.04.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGIST RAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER