ACIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi V. Renu Proptech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 9451/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5693 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GOVIL UPADHYAYA
• Keywords: Share purchase agreement; Earning of tax free income; Source of fund; Valuation report; Accommodation entries; Prejudicial to interest; Onus to prove
• Section: 68; 13; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI F BEN CH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 7653/DEL/2019 [A.Y 2016-17] M/S RENU PROPTECH PVT LTD VS. THE A.C.I.T. 31,JANGPURA ROAD CIRCLE 21(1) BHOGAL, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN: AAFCR 1253 G ITA NO. 9451/DEL/2019 [A.Y 2016-17] THE A.C.I.T. VS. RENU PROPTECH PVT LTD CIRCLE 21(1) 31,JANGPURA ROAD NEW DELHI BHOGAL, NEW DELHI [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GOVIL UPADHYAYA, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI H.K. CHOUDHARY, CIT(DR) SHRI PRAKASH DUBEY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 01.04.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.04.2021 2 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THE ABOVE TWO CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND REV ENUE ARE PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 7, NEW DELHI DATED 03.09.2019 PERTAINING TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2016-17. SINCE BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER, THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES WERE HEARD AT LENGTH, THE CASE RECORDS CAREFULLY PERUSED AND WITH THE ASSISTANCE O F THE LD. COUNSEL AND THE LD. DR, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK IN LIGHT OF RULE 1 8(6) OF ITAT RULES. 3. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES HAVE ALSO FILE D WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN ADDITION TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ORAL SU BMISSIONS SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS. 3 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISS IONS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED WHAT HAS BE EN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. THE LD. DR HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE FINDINGS OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO RELIED UPON SEVERAL JUDICIAL DECISI ONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE CANNOT B E ANY DECISION WHICH WOULD BE FACTUALLY IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE AS SESSEE MUTATIS MUTANDIS. IN FACT, ALL THE DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORD INATE BENCHES, RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR, ARE BASED ON SPECIFIC FACTS OF THOSE CASES AND THE CO- ORDINATE BENCHES HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUES AFTER ANAL YZING THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CAS E IN HAND DISCUSSED HEREINBELOW. 6. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION, DEVELOPING, PROMOTING, MANAGING, OPER ATING, LEASING AND DEALING IN ALL KINDS OF REAL ESTATE. DURING THE YEA R, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY 4 ISSUED 1269400 FULLY PAID EQUITY SHARES OF FACE VAL UE OF RS.10 AT A PREMIUM OF RS. 490/- PER SHARE AND 1065400 PARTLY P AID EQUITY SHARES OF FACE VALUE OF RS.10 PER SHARE AT A PREMIUM OF RS. 4 90/- PER SHARE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED RS. 1,80 ,21,000/- AS SHARE CAPITAL AND RS. 88,30,29,000/- AS SHARE PREMIUM DUR ING THE YEAR. 7. INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT , THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CRE DIT WORTHINESS OF THE SUBSCRIBERS. THE REQUISITE DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS TO WHOM SHARES WERE ALLOTTED D URING THE YEAR IS AS UNDER: 5 6 7 8 9 10 8. THE AO EXAMINED THE DETAILS OF EACH SHARE APPLIC ANT. THE AO FURTHER EXAMINED THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE AND SUMMA RIZED HIS FINDINGS AS UNDER: 11. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE A BOVE PARAS, FEW FACTS ARE BEING REITERATED BELOW TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLETE PICTURE:- 1. ALL THE INDIVIDUALS HAVING MEAGRE GROSS TOTAL IN COME HAVE HUGE EXEMPT INCOME FROM THE NON-GENUINE SOURCES, INCLUDI NG ENTRY 11 OPERATORS LIKE S.K. JAIN(SPECIFICALLY BARRED BY THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE), PENNY STOCK. 2. SHARES OF FOUR INDEPENDENT OR NON-RELATED PARTI ES WHICH WERE PARTLY PAID, ARE FORFEITED IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESS MENT YEAR, I.E., 2017-18. THESE DUBIOUS ENTRIES SHOW THAT THE ASSESS E NEVER HAD THE GENUINE INTENTION TO RAISE THE SHARE CAPITAL/PREMIU M, BUT TO SHOW THE CHANNELS DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 3. SUMMONSES WERE ISSUED TO THESE INVESTOR COMPANIE S BUT NOBODY FROM THEIR SIDE TURNED UP IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SUMMONS. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT AT ALL DIFFICULT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE TH EM AS ALL THE INVESTOR PARTIES ARE IN SOME OR OTHER WAY RELATED T O THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, YET, THE ASSESSEE CHOSE NOT TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHICH FURTHER SHOWS THE CA SUALNESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 4. ASSESSEE DIDNT EVEN FURNISH THE REQUISITE DOCUM ENTS, HENCE HAVENT EVEN FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICES (SAME CAN BE S EEN IN TABLE 1). IT WAS LEFT TO THE AO TO DO INDEPENDENT INQUIRY. 5. THE VALUATION OF SHARES IN COMPANIES WHERE THE A SSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE INVESTMENT (IN UNLISTED SHARES)IS BEEN DONE BY MR. SATVINDRA SINGH WHO ALSO HAPPEN TO BE THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CLEARLY CREATES CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THUS EVEN THE INVESTMENT AMOU NTING TO RS. 10 CR. REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. 12 6. SIMILARLY, THE VALUATION OF SHARES OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY IS BEING DONE ON FORWARD DATE 22.7.2016 WHILE THE ISSUANCE O F SHARES AND DATE OF RECEIPTS OF SHARE PREMIUM IN BANK ACCOUNTS ARE S TARTING FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR (APRIL 2015), WHICH RAISES TH E SUSPICION THAT BACK CALCULATION HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AFTE R RECEIVING THE PREMIUM AMOUNT. 7. TWO RELATED COMPANIES, NIMIT BUILDERS PVT LTD AN D VERMA FINVEST PVT LTD, HAVE NO FINANCIALS SUPPORTING THEIR CREDITWORT HINESS. THEIR BALANCE SHEET IS SYMPTOMATIC OF PAPER COMPANIES/SHE LL COMPANIES, I.E., HEAVY CAPITAL AND PREMIUM, BUT NIL UNDERLYING OPERA TIONS. DESPITE BEING PROVIDED WITH THE SHOW CAUSE REGARDING THE SAME, TH E ASSESSEE COULDNT PROVE OTHERWISE. 8. IN CASE OF NOT DIRECTLY RELATED COMPANIES, THE A SSESSEE COULDNT FURNISH THE EXACT SOURCE OF INCOME IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT ALL 4 SUCH COMPANIES ARE LOSS MAKING AND DONT HAVE ANY W ORTH AS SUCH AS SHOWN IN TABLE 2. ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE CA SH DEPOSITS, AND BANK ENTRIES THROUGH SAME GROUP CONCERNS, POOR FINANCIAL S, EVEN THESE COMPANIES DOESNT QUALIFY THE CRITERIA OF CREDITWOR THINESS. MOREOVER, THE FORFEITURE IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR SHOWS THAT IT WAS MERELY AN ENTRY PASSED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN SUCH CIRCUMST ANCES, THE ONLY POSSIBILITY REMAIN IS TO ROUTE THE FUNDS BY MAKING THESE COMPANIES AS INTERMEDIARIES. 13 1. 2. THERE IS NO CONSIDERABLE BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN T HESE INVESTOR COMPANIES AND OR NO DEFINITE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE INDIVIDU ALS. 3. ROUTING AND RE-ROUTING IN THE SAME COMPANIES, A S DISCUSSED IN THE CASE OF NIMIT BUILDER PVT LTD 4. BANK ACCOUNTS OF MANY OF THE INTERMEDIARIES IN T HE BANK CHANNEL ARE CLOSED AND DORMANT WHICH FURTHER CLEARS THE INTENTI ON OF THEIR EXISTENCE, I.E., TO CHANNELIZE THE UNACCOUNTED FUND S THROUGH LAYERS 5. BANK STATEMENT OF THESE INVESTOR COMPANIES SHOW THAT, MONEY CAME FROM SOME THIRD PARTY INTO THEIR ACCOUNT, WHICH REM AIN UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF ANY COOPERATION FROM THE INVESTOR COMPAN IES, AND IMMEDIATELY THE MONEY WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 6. MODUS OPERANDI OF ALL THESE INVESTOR COMPANIES I S STRIKINGLY IDENTICAL 7. MOREOVER, DIRECTOR AND ADDRESSES OF THESE INVES TOR COMPANIES ARE ALSO RELATED AND APPOINTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE I NVESTEE COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS (AS EXPLAINED IN COMPANY CHART ATTA CHED AND THE FAMILY TREE). 8. MOREOVER, SH. DINESH GUPTA WHO IS THE DIRECTOR O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND HAS BEEN STATED TO BE THE REAL MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ALL OTHER GROUP COMPANIES COULD NOT PRO DUCE HIMSELF 14 AGAINST THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE INVESTOR PARTIES IN THE CAPACITY OF PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF THESE PARTIES AND COULD NOT PR OVIDE SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THIS MO NEY; LEAVE ASIDE DISCHARGING THE ONUS OF PRODUCING OTHER DIRECTORS O F THE COMPANIES AS WAS REQUIRED BY THE UNDERSIGNED. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN HIS SOURCE OF INCOME SATISFACTORI LY. 9. IN LIGHT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CONCLUSION, THE A O FORMED A FIRM BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GROSSLY FAILED TO DISC HARGE THE BURDEN OF PROOF CAST UPON IT BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF T HE ACT. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS IS ENTRY PROVIDERS BELONGING TO S.K. JAIN GROUP. THE AO FURTHER OBSERV ED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE BUT HAS NO RUNNING REAL ESTATE BUSINESS AND IS SHOWING NO ENTR Y IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF INCOME IS THROUG H INVESTMENT IN FDS IN THE FORM OF INTEREST, WHILE THE SOURCE OF THIS I NVESTMENT IS MONEY THAT IT HAS RECEIVED IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SH ARE PREMIUM THROUGH CIRCUITOUS TRANSACTIONS. 15 10. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT UNDERTAK E A SINGLE PROJECT DURING THE YEAR AND HENCE IT IS INEXPLICABLE HOW TH E CAPITAL APPRECIATION HAS ACCRUED TO THE INVESTOR COMPANIES. DRAWING SUPP ORT FROM THE RATIO LAIDDOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F SUMATI DAYAL 80 TAXMANN.COM 89, THE AO APPLIED THE TEST OF HUMAN PR OBABILITY AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 88,30,29,000/-. 11. ASSESSMENT WAS ASSAILED BEFORE THE CITA. 12. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSES SEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND RE LIED UPON THE VERY SAME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH WERE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 13. AFTER PERUSING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND DETA ILED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY PARTLY CON FIRMED THE ADDITIONS OF SHRI ANAND GUPTA, HUF AND SHREE SANCHIT GUPTA AND A LL OTHER ADDITIONS WERE DELETED. HENCE THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSE SSEE AND THE REVENUE. 16 14. THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH THE APPELLANT F ILED IN RESPECT OF ALL PERSONS TO WHOM THE SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO DEM ONSTRATE THAT IT HAS DISCHARGED THE INITIAL ONUS CAST UPON IT BY PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ARE AS UNDER: 1. COPY OF PAN, 2. COPY OF SHARE APPLICATION, 3. CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT OF SHARES, 4. SHAREHOLDERS CONFIRMATION FOR SUBSCRIPTION OF S HARES, 5. COPY OF SHARE CERTIFICATE, 6. COPY OF ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR A Y 201617, 7. AFFIDAVIT, 8. BANK STATEMENT, 9. SOURCE OF SOURCE DOCUMENT. 15. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUME NTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY PROV ED THE SOURCE OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED BY IT, BUT HAS A LSO PROVED THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF SHAREHOLDERS. W E FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY 17 THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM BUT HAS MADE G ENERAL OBSERVATIONS IN RESPECT OF ENTRY PROVIDER OF SOME SK JAIN GROUP. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE SOU RCE AND SOURCE OF THE SOURCE, AND IF THE SOURCE IS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN OR GIVE PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION OF ITS SOURCE, THEN, THE ADDITION SHO ULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THAT PERSON AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE COMPANY, AS PRIMA FACIE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DISCHARGED IT S BURDEN OF PROOF. 16. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT SHRI ANAND GUPTA, HUF AND SHRI SANCHIT GUPTA, WHOSE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE C IT[A], THESE TWO SHARE APPLICANTS HAVE SHOWN THEIR RESPECTIVE SOURCE OF SOURCE, SALE CONSIDERATION RESULTING INTO CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE O F SHARES OF SHITAL LEASING AND FINANCE LTD WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER, WAS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY BUSINESS. ASSUMING T HAT THE SHAREHOLDER ANAND GUPTA HUF HAS INTRODUCED HIS OWN UNACCOUNTED CASH IN THE DISGUISE OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM SALE OF SHA RES OF SOME PENNY STOCK COMPANY, THEN THE ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN HIS HANDS AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY. 18 17. LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM SALE OF SHARES OF S HITAL LEASING AND FINANCE LTD, IF ACCORDING TO THE AO, IS A SHAM TRAN SACTION, THEN, ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE RESPECTIVE HANDS OF TH E SHARE APPLICANTS AND NOT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE APPELLANT IS ONLY REQUIRED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CA PACITY OF THE LENDER AND BY VIRTUE OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WHERE THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED SHARE PREMIUM, THEN IT HAS A LSO TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF SOURCE. 18. CONSIDERING THE PLETHORA OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC ES, WE FIND THAT NOT ONLY THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE SOURCE OF THE CREDITOR, BUT IT HAS ALSO FURNISHED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO SHOW TH E SOURCE OF SOURCE. WE FIND THAT THE AO, WHILE MAKING ADDITION, HAS MAD E GENERAL OBSERVATIONS RELATING TO THE CIRCULATION FROM ONE S OURCE TO THE OTHER. 19. ON THE ONE HAND, THE AO OBSERVES THAT ALL THE S HARE APPLICANTS/INDIVIDUALS/HUF/COMPANIES ARE RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE AO IS DOUBTING TH E IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. THE AO CANNOT BLOW HOT AND COLD I N THE SAME BREATH. FURTHER, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHILE DELET ING THE ADDITIONS ON 19 ACCOUNT OF 10 SHARE APPLICANTS ON THE SAME SET OF F ACTS HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TWO SHARE APP LICANTS, NAMELY, SHRI ANAND GUPTA, HUF AND SHRI SANCHIT GUPTA. 20. WE FIND THAT THE ENTIRE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMI UM HAS BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES DRAWN ON THE ACCOUNT OF SHAREHOLDERS WHO ARE ALL INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES AND HAVE CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION OF HAVING MADE INVESTMENTS IN THE ASSES SEE COMPANY AND HAVE ALSO FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS AND HAVE EXPLAINED THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF FUNDS IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT OU T OF WHICH SHARE SUBSCRIPTION INCLUDING PREMIUM HAS BEEN PAID TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THESE EVIDENCES CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE LIGHTLY AND PREPONDERANCE OF HUMAN PROBABILITY CANNOT GET PRECEDENCE OVER THESE EVIDENCES GALORE. 21. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE AO HAS NOT DOU BTED THE SHARE PREMIUM OF RS. 490/- PER SHARE AS THE SAME IS SUPPO RTED BY THE VALUATION REPORT AS PER THE I.T. RULES. BY DISBELIEVING THE S OURCE OF SOURCE BEING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF SHARES OF SHITAL LEASING AND FINANCE LTD AND SHILPI CABLE TECHNOLOGI ES, THE AO CANNOT JUSTIFY THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY. AS MENTIONED 20 ELSEWHERE, ANY ADDITION WHICH DESERVED TO BE MADE S HOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS WHO HAVE SHOWN THEIR SOURCE OF SOURCE AS SALE OF SHARES OF THESE COMPANIES OR ALLE GED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE BU RDEN CAST UPON IT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT OR NOT IS P URELY A QUESTION OF FACT AND HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE AND , THEREFORE, NO JUDICIAL DECISION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED ON THE PECULI AR FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND. 22. CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO O N THE BASIS OF GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND WITHOUT DRAWING ANY ADVERS E INFERENCE IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS [SHARE APPLICANTS ] SUCH ADDITIONS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED EVIDENCES DEMONSTRATING THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS, THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS, AT LEAST, CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS POINTED OUT EARLIER, THE LD. CIT[A] HA S ALSO ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE TWO ADDITIONS, NAMELY, SHRI ANAND GU PTA HUF AND SHRI SANCHIT GUPTA WHICH ARE ALSO WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE 21 DISCUSSION HEREINABOVE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 23. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.7653/DEL/2019 IS ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.9451/DEL/ 2019 IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.04. 2021. SD/- SD/- [BHAVNESH SAINI] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 26 TH APRIL, 2021. VL/ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, NEW DELHI