ITO-9(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. CAPETOWN EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4951/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by the Revenue challenging the order of the CIT(A) which had allowed the appeal of Capetown Exports Private Limited, the Assessee, against the Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue was the addition of INR 38,82,60,000 under Section 68, which the Assessing Officer had deemed unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) found that the Assessee had provided adequate documentation and evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the share capital received and the creditworthiness of the investor. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings, emphasizing that the Assessee had discharged the onus of proof required under Section 68.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471089 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Orissa Corpn (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 136 (Bom), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1 vs. Ami Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2020] 424 ITR 219 (Bombay), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax \\u2013 14, Mumbai Vs. Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd. [2019] 105 taxmann.com 206 (Bombay)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Source of fund; Share purchase agreement
• Section: 143(3); 119; 68; 131; 133(6)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"C” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4951/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Income Tax Officer 9(2)(1), Mumbai Room No.622, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020 Maharashtra. …………. Appellant Capetown Exports Private Limited 2nd Floor, Crystal Shopping Arcade, Opp. Indian Bank, S. V. Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai – 400054. Maharashtra. [PAN:AACCC7961P] Vs …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Department For the Respondent/Assessee : : Shri R. A. Dhyani Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 21.01.2025 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Revenue has challenged the order dated 18/07/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2019, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. The delay of 8 days in filing the present appeal is condoned in view of the reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ITA No.4951/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 2 and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred by allowing the appeal of the Assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 38,82,50,000/-, as received from M/s Avas Developer & Construction Pvt. Ltd, made u/s 68 without appreciating the facts that the Assessee as well as Investor Company i.e. M/s Avas Developer & Construction Pvt. Ltd failed to provide the source of fund and nature of transaction. The same facts has also been mentioned in the Writ Petition No. 1569 of 2021 with interim application (L) No. 16884 of 2021 in Writ Petition No. 1569 of 2021 in the case of M/s Sunlight Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. which clearly established that Wadhawans and Doshi’s conspired together and formulated rotation of funds in such a coordinated manner that this whole facade of Money Laundering by way of rotations was done in a single day i.e. on 02.09.2016. The Wadhawan and Doshis entered into conspiracy under which M/s Awas Developers & M/s Bidco Studs allegedly acquired preferential shares in M/s Capetown Exports & M/s Harsh Propcon respectively. Thus, these transactions of acquiring preferential shares by Wadhawan Group Companies in Doshi’s Group Company are only a front/tool to rotate the money through their companies.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant/Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the real estate business. For the Assessment Year 2017-2018 the Assessee filed return of income on 02/11/2017 which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the return was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection under ‘Limited’ category for the following reason – (a) Share capital/capital, and (b) Investments/advances/loans. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that though the Assessee had ‘Nil’ income, the Assessee had received preference share capital of INR.38,82,60,000/- during the relevant previous year. The Assessing Officer also noted that the Assessee had given advance of INR.38,82,60,000/-. Therefore, explanation was sought by the Assessing Officer regarding the subscription of share capital and utilization of funds so received. The Assessing Officer issued various notices during assessment ITA No.4951/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 3 proceedings to the Assessee. In response, the Assessee filed reply letters dated 22/10/2019 [Page No.4 to 6 of the Paper Book], 10/12/2019 [Page no.1 of the paper book] and 23/12/2019 [Reproduced in paragraph 3.3 of the Assessment Order]. The Assessee explained that 6,21,20,000/- 8% Redeemable Preference Non-Convertible Non-Cumulative Preference Shares of Face Value of INR 10 per Share were allotted by the Assessee to Avas Developer and Construction Private Limited, a company engaged in real estate business. Out of Face Value of INR.10 per share, INR.6.25 per share was paid up (while balance of INR.3.75 per share was yet to be called) and therefore, the Assessee received aggregate preference share capital of INR.38,82,60,000/- during the relevant previous year. The aforesaid funds were given as advance to Sterling Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, company undertaking Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) Project in Chembur, Mumbai. In support of the aforesaid submission the Assessee filed details and documents. The stand taken by the Assessee was also supported by the response sent by Avas Developer and Construction Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Investor’] to the notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Act. The Investor also placed on record its financial accounts and bank statement for the relevant period. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced. Vide Assessment Order, dated 27/12/2019, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made addition of INR.38,82,60,000/- under Section 68 of the Act holding that the Assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the Investor. 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and reiterated the submission made before the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the Assessee had furnished following ITA No.4951/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 4 documents/details before the Assessing Officer: (a) Copy of MoU between the Assessee and Sterling Biocon Pvt. Ltd. [Page No.187 to 197 of the Paper Book] (b) Details of loans and advances to Sterling Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. of INR.38,89,97,700/- [Page No. 1 to 3 of the Paper Book] (c) Letter by Avas Developers and Construction Pvt. Ltd. to the Board of Directors of Capetown Exports Private Limited for investment in Preference shares. [Page No. 118 of the Paper Book] (d) Letter by Avas Developers and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. to Capetown Exports Private Limited giving the details of remittances made through banking channel towards subscription of Preference Share Capital. [Page No. 119 of the Paper Book] (e) Copy of the resolution passed at the meeting of the Board of Directors of Assessee held on 31/10/2016 for allotment of preference shares [Page No. 117 of the Paper Book] (f) Share Application Form & Form PAS-5. [Page No. 123 of the Paper Book] (g) Audited Accounts of Avas Developers & Constructions Private Ltd for the Financial Year 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017. [Page No. 154 to 186 of the Paper Book] (h) Bank A/c. No.886078163 of Assessee showing receipt. [Page No. 134 to 135 of the Paper Book] (i) Reply given by Avas Developer and Construction Pvt. Ltd. to Notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 133(6) of the Act giving PAN Number, details of jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Audited Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account for Financial Year 2016-2017, giving confirmation for subscription/allotment of preference shares, details of remittances aggregating to INR.38,82,50,000/- through banking channel along with relevant extract of bank statement [Page No. 198 to 200, 124 to 133, of the Paper Book). (j) Audited Balance Sheet of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019. [Page No. 4 to 112 of the Paper Book] ITA No.4951/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 5 (k) Assessment Order, dated 22/03/2016, passed in the case of Assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. [Page No. 113 to 116 of the Paper Book] 5. On the strength of the above documents it was contended on behalf of the Assessee that the Assessee had proved the genuineness of the share subscription transaction and creditworthiness of the Investor. The CIT(A), after examining the above documents and taking into consideration the submission filed by the Assessee during the assessment/appellate proceedings deleted the above addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act holding that the Assessee had discharged the onus cast under Section 68 of the Act and allowed the appeal of the Assessee vide order, dated 18/07/2024. 6. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 7. We have heard both the sides, perused the material on record and examined the position in law. We have also taken into consideration the written submission filed by the Learned Departmental Representative wherein reliance has been placed on Paragraphs 2.4 and 4.1 to 4.11 of the Assessment Order, as well as the Fact Sheet and Legal Submission filed on behalf of the Assessee. 8. There is no dispute that the Assessee had filed the documents and details listed in paragraph 4 above before the Assessing Officer. On perusal of the same we are of the view that the Assessee had discharged the primary onus cast upon the Assessee under Section 68 of the Act. The identity of the Investor was never in doubt. As regards the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the Investor is concerned, on ITA No.4951/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 6 perusal of material on record, we find that the Assessee had explained that the Assessee had purchased land in the year around 2006 and sold the same in the Financial Year 2010-2011 along with development rights for INR.40 Crores. Thereafter, the Assessee was looking for new opportunities for business. However due to sluggish real estate market the Assessee was not getting good business opportunities. During the relevant previous year the Assessee got good opportunity for purchasing of FSI from Sterling Buildcon Pvt. Ltd in respect of SRA Project at Chembur, Mumbai. To support the aforesaid submissions, the Assessee placed reliance upon the MoU between the Assessee and Sterling Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. In order to raise funds for the aforesaid business opportunity the Assessee approached the Investor. Assessee and the Investor agreed to investment in the Assessee-company in the form of preference share capital. Accordingly, 8% Redeemable Preference Non-Convertible Non- Cumulative Preference Shares of Face Value of INR.10 per Share were allotted by the Assessee to the Investor. Out of Face Value of INR.10 per share, INR.6.25 per share was paid up and therefore, the Assessee received aggregate preference share capital of INR.38,82,60,000/- during the relevant previous year. The aforesaid funds were given as advance to Sterling Buildcon Pvt. Ltd as per the MoU. The Assessee filed Share Application Form, Board Resolution passed by the Assessee for allotment of preference shares along with Form PAS 5, Letter of Remittance of preference share capital and Financial Statements of the Assessee and Investor during the assessment proceedings to support the genuineness of allotment of preference shares and source of share capital. 9. We note that, the Assessing Officer had also issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to the Investor. The Investor filed reply ITA No.4951/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 7 explaining that the Investor had subscribed to preference share capital of the Assessee and confirmed the preference share subscription/allotment transaction with the Assessee. In support the Investor filed copy of bank statement showing remittances made to the Assessee and placed before the Assessing Officer the audited financial statements for the relevant assessment years. We note that the Investor also provided details of source of funds used by the Investor for subscribing to the preference shares issued by the Assessee. The Investor had filed copy of bank statement [Placed at Page No.134 to 135 of the Paper Book] of the account maintained by the Investor with Indian Bank (Branch Code 0032) showing receipt of funds from Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd. Thus, the source of preference share capital received by the Assessee as well as the source of the investment made by the Investor in preference share capital (i.e. source of source) was identified and explained to the Assessing Officer. The Assessee/Investor had also furnished following details its shareholder along with the financial details of the 3 major shareholders: Name and address Shareholding PAN Emerald Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 15.75 AAACE4757B Bidco Studs Pvt. Ltd. 17.65 AAACB7122M Saphire Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. 17.5 AAACS7785H Satyam Realtors 17.5 AACCS7290P Serveall Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 18.45 AADCS4763Q Suansa Power Pvt. Ltd. 13.15 AACCH0092A Name Capital & Reserve (In Cr.) Loans (In Cr) Non-current Investment (In Cr) Inventories (In Cr) Emerald Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (March 16) 48.38 276.89 460.95 253.63 Emerald Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (March 15) 48.42 256.58 453.20 228.79 Bidco Studs Pvt. Ltd. (March 16) 37.82 0 26.85 0 ITA No.4951/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 8 Bidco Studs Pvt. Ltd. (March 15) 37.89 0 35.47 0 Serveall Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (March 16) 36.57 303.16 153.44 309.27 Serveall Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (March 15) 36.64 207.58 162.72 259.54 10. Further, we note that as per the audited financials, the Investor also had work-in-progress of INR.60.02 Crore and INR.81.61 Crore as on 31/03/2015 and 31/03/2016, respectively. Thus, it cannot be said that the Investor was merely a shell entity. 11. The CIT(A) had, after taking into consideration above said documents/details/submission concluded in favour of the Assessee in the following manner: “6.8 In view of the above, the appellant contested that the shareholders of the investor company are having good available capital which they can pump in whenever necessary. Also we see that in both the years there is bank loan and inventory. Further, There are no cash deposits in the bank statement. There is no evidence that funds of Appellant are routed back to Appellant through the investor company. 6.9 The contention of the appellant is considered and found to be acceptable. The appellant has filed requisite details to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions and credit worthiness of the investor company. 6.10 Having established the nature of amount credited (i.e. on account of loan) Provisions of section 68 are evaluated and reproduced here under: “Where any sum is found credited in the books of an appellant maintained for any previous year, and the appellant offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the appellant of that previous year… ITA No.4951/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 9 6.11 In order to invoke section 68, the most essential aspect is that the tax payer do not offer any explanation towards source and nature of such cash credit. 6.12 Any entry in books of account is regarded as genuine if the Identity, genuineness of transaction and Creditworthiness of the lender can be proven. In the impugned case, the appellant has filed all the necessary documents of the lenders to prove the genuineness 6.13. xx xx 6.14 The reliance is also placed on following judicial pronouncements CIT v. Orissa Corpn (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the appellant had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors and it was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax appellants. The Revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the appellant, did not pursue the matter further and did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were credit-worthy or were such who could advance the alleged loans. It was further held that there was no effort made to pursue the so called alleged creditors and in those circumstances, the appellant could not do anything further. The findings and conclusion of the Tribunal were upheld that the appellant had discharged the burden that lay on him. The Bombay High court in CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 136 (Bom) has held that where the Appellant has produced on record the documents to establish the genuineness of the party such as PAN of all the creditors along with the confirmation, their bank statements showing payment of share application money , entire record regarding issuance of shares i.e. allotment of shares to these parties, their share application forms, allotment letters and share certificates, so also the books of account then no addition can be made u/s 68. 6.15 In view of the above, I am of the considerate opinion that Ld. AO has ignored the commercial arrangement. He has merely focused on the fact that the appellant has not carried out any business activity and presumed that no rational investor will not invest in appellant company. Moreover, the Ld. AO has contested that preference shares are issued at premium whereas the appellant has issued preference shares less than face value. Moreover, on the documentary evidences filed by the appellant is it reasonable to conclude that the appellant has very well discharged its primary onus of filing requisite documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of transaction of issuance of preference shares and has also filed supporting ITA No.4951/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 10 documentation/ explanation towards creditworthiness of investor company. The Ld. AO has not provided any cogent reason in his order regarding rejection of the confirmation filed by Avas Developer in response to notice U/s 133(6). 6.16 Having regard to above, it is very well established that the appellant has discharged it onus and therefore the underlined funds ca not be treated as unexplained. Resultant the addition carried out by the Ld. AO for sum of Rs.38,82,50,000/- is deleted. 6.17 Accordingly, the ground 1 of the appeal is allowed.” (Emphasis Supplied) 12. We concur with the above findings returned by the CIT(A) which are based upon material on record noted hereinabove. In the present case the Assessee has discharged the primary onus to establish the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the Investor. The Investor had also complied with the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 133(6) of the Act and had confirmed the transaction with the Assessee. In addition, the Assessee/Investor had provided details of all 6 shareholders along with the details of Capital & Reserve of 3 major shareholders, filed audited financial statement and relevant extract of bank statement. Thus, onus shifted upon the Assessing Officer to bring on record material to controvert the submission and supporting documents filed by the Assessee/Investor. Since, the Assessing Officer had failed to do so, we are of the view that the CIT(A) was justified in deleted the addition of INR.38,82,60,000/- made under Section 68 of the Act. Thus, given the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Our view draws strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1 vs. Ami Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2020] 424 ITR 219 (Bombay)[29-01-2020] and Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Orchid Industries (P.) Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 136 (Bombay)[05-07- ITA No.4951/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 11 2017] cited on behalf of the Assessee during the course of hearing. 13. During the course of hearing the Learned Departmental Representative has placed reliance upon the observations made by the Assessing Officer regarding the terms of on which preference share capital was issued and had submitted that no Investor would have made investment on such terms. In this regard we agreed with the contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in the armchair of the businessmen-Investor and review the business decision made by the businessmen-Investor to subscribe to 8% Redeemable Preference Non-Convertible Non-Cumulative Preference Shares issued by the Assessee. Therefore, we concur with the observations made by the CIT(A) in paragraph 6.15 of the order impugned, and hold that the Assessing Officer was not correct in ignoring the commercial arrangement and in coming to the conclusion that no investor would have made investment in the Assessee-company. It would be pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 14, Mumbai Vs. Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd. [2019] 105 taxmann.com 206 (Bombay). In that case one of the reason for invoking provisions of Section 68 of the Act was that the Assessing Officer was of the view that the Assessee had received preference share capital on terms which were so adverse to the investor/subscriber that no prudent businessman would have ever agreed to invest/subscribe to preference shares on such terms. Rejecting the aforesaid approach adopted by the Assessing Officer, the Hon’ble Bombay Court held as under: “7. As is well known in the context of Section 68 of the Act, the basic duty would be on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transaction, credit worthiness of the ITA No.4951/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 12 investor and the source of funds. Equally well settled principle through series of judgments is that the Department cannot insist on the assessee establishing source of the source. With this background, we may peruse the impugned judgment of the Tribunal more minutely. 8. In its decision, the Tribunal noted that the investment made by P5AHIML was done registering itself with SEBI and after obtaining necessary approvals from Ministry of Finance. The application made to the Ministry of Finance contained full details of the investment, the background of the transaction, the terms of the agreement, identity of the investor and the investor group. The Tribunal noted that P5AHIML was an investment arm of Providence Equity Partners and the Tribunal had perused the financial statements which disclosed the flow of funds in the said P5AHIML The Tribunal further recorded that while making such investment, the investor not only looks for dividend or interest but also expects return on such investment as capital appreciation, when the investment finally gets converted into equity shares. The Tribunal found that this was the reason why P5AHIML had made the investment in assessee company. In the opinion of the Tribunal merely because there were multiple entities involved in such investment process, would not enable the Assessing Officer to draw an adverse inference on the financial capacity of P5AHIML. The Tribunal noted that during the assessment, the Assessing Officer had called for all necessary details which were supplied by the assessee. In view of such materials, it was not open for the Assessing Officer to invoke Section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal further noted that information was also sought from Foreign Tax Division with regard to the genuineness of the investment made by Providence Equity Partners in PSAHIMI. Necessary information was also received. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the Commissioner had called for remand report from the Assessing Officer on the additional evidence produced on record. In the report, the Assessing Officer had made remark suggesting that the transactions were genuine. The Tribunal also verified the necessary permissions for remittances of the funds and other relevant documents. 9. It can, thus be seen that at every stage, the full inquiry of source of funds and other relevant factors in relation to ITA No.4951/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 13 the investment in question was carried out. The Assessing Officer himself carried out a detailed inquiry. His initial suspicion or in other words starting point of inquiry on the basis that apparently the investor was investing huge amount which may prima facie appear to be without adequate possible returns, may be fully justified. However, when all the relevant factors are properly explained, including the fact that the payment of dividend was not the sole attraction for the investor and that the investor could expect a fair return on the investment, of course, subject to vagaries of the any business decision, the Assessing Officer had to advert to all such materials on record in proper perspective. As noted by the Tribunal, all necessary permissions and clearances were granted by the Government of India and other government authorities for such investment. The source of the funds in the hands of PSAHIML was also verified. Merely because multiple corporate bodies may have been involved in the entire process of collecting funds in P5AHIML and then investing the same in the assessee company, by itself would not be sufficient to establish a sham transaction or colourable device. 10. We further notice that when the Commissioner (Appeals) had permitted additional evidence to be produced on record during the appellate proceedings, he had called for remand report from the Assessing Officer. Such report was made by him on 27.5.2013. In such report, his remarks were as under- “7. On going through the documentary evidence, prima facie it appears that the identify of P5 Asia Holdings is established through residency certificate issued by the Mauritius Government. Assessee has filed documentary evidence of funds transfer vide letter dated 27th May 2013 by filing of copy of bank extracts. Copies of the said letter along with annexures are enclosed. Prima facie these prove the genuineness and the financial capacity of the persons making investment in preference shares. (Zerox Copy of the said reference enclosed as Annexure -E).\" 11. Thus, the Assessing Officer himself was also prima facie of the belief that the materials on record prove genuineness and financial capacity of the persons making investment. ITA No.4951/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 14 The Commissioner (Appeals) was under the directive of the High Court of Bombay to dispose of the appeal within a short time. It was for this reason that in his appellate order, he had recorded that further investigation into the additional documents was pending and therefore, in compliance with the order of the High Court, he was disposing of the appeal. Thus, the order of the Appellate Commissioner cannot be seen as the decision on merits of the matter for which he found inadequate time available with him. As noted, the Tribunal carried out the detailed enquiry into all aspects of the matter and noticed no suspicious movement of the funds. Merely because the investment was considerably large and as noted, several corporate structures were either created or came into play in routing the investment in the assessee through P5AHIML would be sufficient to brand the transaction as colourbale devices. 12. In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is dismissed.” 14. Before parting, we would like to observe that there is nothing on record to show that the Assessee was involved in circular movement of funds as alleged in the ground raised before the Tribunal. Even in the Assessment Order no such allegations have been made against the Assessee. Therefore, the contentions raised by the Revenue in ground raised in appeal in this regard are rejected as not being supported by any material on record. 15. Accordingly, in view of the above Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed 16. In result appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 19.03.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated :19.03.2025. Milan, LDC ITA No.4951/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 15 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त/ The CIT 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त / Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदध, आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy// उप/सह यक पुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai "