9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g additions were made against sale of shares of M/s Kappac Pharma Limited treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act. This was claimed as exempt by assessees u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Name of the case ITA No. Addition (Rs) Nitasha Gupta 2826/Del/2018 ₹ 28,66,148 Manoj Kumar Gupta 2825/Del/2018 ₹ 21,41,792 Arun Kumar 457/Del/2018 ₹ 21,23,850 2. Since facts involved in these appeals are same and identical, hence, the appeals were heard together and for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are being consolidated and disposed of by this common order. For sake of reference and facility, facts in case of Nitasha Gupta vs. ITO, Ward 3(1) Gurgaon in ITA 2826/Del/2018 (AY 2014-15) are taken up to adjudicate the principal issue of allowability of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act vis. a vis. unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and only Grounds of appeal raised by assessee i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at par with search statements recorded u/s 132(4) and cannot straightway justify adverse inference even against the statement giving person ; ii) secondly these statements are not equivalent to material much less incriminating material in eyes of law and they are not corroborated by any iota of independent material; iii) thirdly, these statements cannot bind assessee who was not subject matter of any parallel survey operation etc; iv) fourthly these statements are pre-existing as were recorded by investigation wing and no where independently re-examined by Ld AO; v) fifthly, these statements are not put to acid test of crossexamination ; vi) sixthly, statements recorded on 02/06/2015 and 30.03.2015 are after expiry of extant financial year 2013-2014 which cannot be extra-polated ; vii) seventhly how these statements are procured and recd by Ld AO in present case is not discernible ; viii) eighthly assessee never made the transaction through persons whose statements are recorded and relied (also denied categorically before Ld AO in reply dated 28/11/2016); ix) lastly it is no body s case that these general statements talk about assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders like investigation wing report etc and no opportunity to cross examine the revenue s witness was given despite specific written request in this regard made to Ld AO/CIT-A. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT-A erred in sustaining the action of ld AO in making addition of ₹ 28,66,148 /- without appreciating that section 68 and section 115BBE are not applicable to sale of shares as mentioned in impugned assessment order. 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT-A erred in sustaining the action of ld AO in making addition of ₹ 28,66,148 without appreciating that in identical facts in various orders relief has been granted to assessee accepting LTCG (long term capital gains) as genuine. 10. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT-A erred in sustaining the action of ld AO in making addition of ₹ 28,66,148 without appreciating spirit of law contained in section 10(38) and section 43(5)(d) where statutory status is provided to evidences generated from stock exchange system treating the same to be impeccable and only from finance act 2017 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT-A is given at para 4.12 to 4.16 of his order. This is now assailed by assessee in present set of appeals filed. If views of both AO and Ld CIT-A are summarized then crux of the same is astronomical long term capital gains earned by assessee defies common sense and is against the principle of human probability and surrounding circumstances which according to AO and Ld CIT-A in background of investigation conducted by investigation wing Kolkata casts heavy and serious doubts on genuineness of long term capital gains earned by assessee. According to AO and Ld CIT-A the long term capital gains earned by assessee is in nature of an accommodation entry and prearranged affair and so both the lower authorities have concurrently held against the assessee to hold that transaction in question are not genuine. 5. At the time of hearing Mr. Kapil Goel, Advocate/Ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated that the issue involved in these appeals have already been decided in favour of the assessee by the plethora of decisions and produced the copies thereof passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court Hon ble High Courts and ITAT wherein, similar views of lower authorities on basis of probabilities and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and found that there was no co-relation between the amounts sought to be added and the entries in those documents. This was on an appreciation of facts. There is nothing to indicate that the same was perverse or irrational. Accordingly, no question of law arises. 2. In similar case, the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs Rungta Properties in ITA No.105 of 2016 dated 08 May, 2017 wherein it was held that on the last point, the tribunal held that the AO had not brought relevant material to show that the transactions in shares of the company involved were false or fictitious. It is the finding of the AO that the scripts of this company was executed by a broker and the broker was suspended for some time. It is the assessee s contention that even though there are allegations against the broker, and for that reason the assessee cannot be held liable on this point, the tribunal held that As a matter of fact the AO doubted the integrity of the broker and the broker firm and also AO observed that the assessee had not furnished any explanation in respect of any discussion of trading of shares. The AO relied the loss of ₹ 25,30,396/- only on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant had transacted not only in the shares which are disputed but shares of various other companies like Satyam Computers, HCL, IPCL, BPCL and Tata Tea etc. Regarding the transactions in question various details like copy of contract note regarding purchase and sale of shares of Limtex and Konark Commerce Ind. Ltd., assessee's account with P.K. Agarwal co. share broker, company's master details from registrar of companies, Kolkata were filed. Copy of depository a/c or demat account with Alankrit Assignment Ltd., a subsidiary of NSDL was also filed which shows that the transactions were made through demat a/c. When the relevant documents are available the fact of transactions entered into cannot be denied simply on the ground that in his statement the appellant denied having made any transactions in shares. The payments and receipts are made through a/c payee cheques and the transactions are routed through Kolkata Stock Exchange. There is no evidence that the cash has gone back in appellants's account. Prima facie the transaction which are supported by documents appear to be genuine transactions. The AO has discussed modus operandi in some sham ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility‟ where there are many probable factors, some in favour of the assessee and some may go against the assessee. But the probable factors have to be weighed on material facts so collected. Here in this case the material facts strongly indicate a probability that the wholesale buyers had collected the premium money for spending it on advertisement and other expenses and it was their liability as per their mutual understanding with the aseessee. Another very strong probable factor is that the entire scheme of twin branding‟ and collection of premium was so designed that assessee company need not incur advertisement expenses and the responsibility for sales promotion and advertisement lies wholly upon wholesale buyers who will borne out these expenses from alleged collection of premium. The probable factors could have gone against the assessee only if there would have been some evidence found from several searches either conducted by DRI or by the department that Assessee Company was beneficiary of any such accounts. At least something would have been unearthed from such global level investigation by two Central Government authorities. In case of certain donations give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced the following documents as evidences: 1. The assessee had made an application for allotment of 50000 equity shares of Smart champs IT and Infra Ltd. and she was allotted the share on 3rd December 2011 (copy of Application form, intimation of allotment and share certificate Paper Book at page 8 to 10). 2. The payment for the allotment of shares was made through an account payee cheque (copy of the bank statement evidencing the source of money and payment made to Smart Champs IT Infra Ltd. for such sharesallotted is placed in the Paper Book at page no. 11). 3. Annual return no. 20B was filed with Registrar of companies by Smart Champs IT Infra Ltd showing the assessee s name as shareholder (copy of annual return no. 20B filed with Registrar of companies by Smart Champs IT Infra Ltd. is placed in the Paper Book at page no. 12 to 18.) 4. The assessee lodged the said shares with the Depository M/s. Eureka Stock Share Broking Services Ltd. with a Demat request on 11th February, 2012. The said shares were dematerialized on 31st March, 2012 (copy of demat request slip along with the transaction statement is placed in the paper book at page no. 19 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, human behavior and discovery of the modus operandi adopted in earning alleged bogus LTCG and STCG, that have surfaced during investigations, should guide the authorities in arriving at a conclusion as to whether the claim in genuine or not. An alleged scam might have taken place on LTCG etc. But it has to be established in each case, by the party alleging so, that this assessee in question was part of this scam. The chain of events and the live link of the assesee s action giving her involvement in the scam should be established. The allegation imply that cash was paid by the assessee and in return the assessee received LTCG, which is income exempt from income tax, by way of cheque through Banking channels. This allegation that cash had changed hands, has to be proved with evidence, by the revenue. Evidence gathered by the Director Investigation s office by way of statements recorded etc. has to also be brought on record in each case, when such a statement, evidence etc. is relied upon by the revenue to make any additions. Opportunity of cross examination has to be provided to the assessee, if the AO relies on any statements or third party as evidence to make an addition. If any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah Bros. Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. In this connection we refer to the general view on the topic of conveyance of immovable properties. The rates/sale price are at variance with the circle rates fixed by the Registration authorities of the Government in most cases and the general impression is that cash would have changed hands. The courts have laid down that judicial notice of such notorious facts cannot be taken based on generalisations. Courts of law are bound to go by evidence. 16. We find that the assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has been guided by the report of the investigation wing prepared with respect to bogus capital gains transactions. However, we do not find that the assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A), have brought out any part of the investigation wing report in which the assessee has been investigated and /or found to be a part of any arrangement for the purpose of generating bogus long term capital gains. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the persons investigated, including entry operators or stock brokers, have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta of evidence in that behalf. The cancellation of the food grain licence at Nawgachia and the prosecution of the appellant under the Defence of India Rules was also of no consequence inasmuch as the appellant was acquitted of the offence with which it had been charged and its licence also was restored. The mere possibility of the appellant earning considerable amounts in the year under consideration was a pure conjecture on the part of the Income-tax Officer and the fact that the appellant indulged in speculation (in Kalai account) could not legitimately lead to the inference that the profit in a single transaction or in a chain of transactions could exceed the amounts, involved in the high denomination notes,---this also was a pure conjecture or surmise on the part of the Income-tax Officer. As regards the disclosed volume of business in the year under consideration in the head office and in branches the Incometax Officer indulged in speculation when he talked of the possibility of the appellant earning a considerable sum as against which it showed a net loss of about ₹ 45,000. The Income-tax Officer indicated the probable source or sources from which the appellant could ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of PREMPAL GANDHI[ITA-95-2017(O M)] dated18.01.2018 at vide Page 3 Para 4 held as under: d) The BENCH D OF KOLKATAITAT in the caseof GAUTAMPINCHA[ITA No.569/Kol/2017]order dated 15.11.2017 held as under vide Page 12 Para 8.1: e) The BENCH D OF KOLKATA ITAT in the case of KIRAN KOTHARI HUF [ITA No. 443/Kol/2017] order dated 15.11.2017 held vide Para 9.3 held as under: f) The BENCH A OF KOLKATAITAT in the caseof SHALEENKHEMANI[ITA No.1945/Kol/2014]order dated 18.10.2017 held as under vide Page 24 Para 9.3: g) The BENCH H OF MUMBAIITAT in the caseof ARVINDKUMAR JAINHUF[ITA No.4682/Mum/2014]order dated 18.09.2017 held as under vide Page 6 Para 8: h)The Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court inthe case ofVIVEK MEHTA[ITA No. 894 OF2010] order dated 14.11.2011 vide Page 2 Para 3 held as under: i) The Hon ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal in I.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2009 dated 29.04.2009 at para 2 held as follows: j) The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. TejuRohitkumar Kapadia order dated 04.05.2018 upheld the following proposition of law laid down by the Hon ble Gujrat High Court as under: 20. Applying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee has been reflected as a shareholder, (vii) the proof of amalgamation of the companies wherein the shareholding has changed, (viii) bank statement, (ix) bank contract notes and delivery instruction to the broker to prove the genuineness of the transactions which has been disbelieved on the species plea that production of these documents strengthens the suspicious transaction of bogus transaction cannot be accepted at all. The ld CIT(A) ought not to have brushed aside these documents without pointing out any defects and therefore the impugned action of ld CIT(A) cannot be countenanced. Moreover the AO has referred in his assessment order the name of M/s. Kailash Auto and M/s. Unno Industries and also statements of Shri L.K. Agarwal and Shri Goutam Bose and Shri S. Dokania. However these persons statements have neither been reproduced in the assessment order nor the assessee given a copy of the statements to rebut. So the action of both AO and ld CIT(A) referring to statements which were purportedly recorded under oath by the Investigation Wing cannot be made the basis for drawing adverse inference against the assessee. Thus the action of AO to refer to certain purported st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further note that the company under scanner as recorded by the AO at page 4 of his order was having shareholder fund as on 31.03.2014 of ₹ 21.82 crores and was having assets worth ₹ 41.50 crores and a turnover of ₹ 15.72 crores and profit of ₹ 10 lacs. Thus the allegation that these companies did not have financial credentials at the time of purchase of shares or sale of shares is not correct and so is perverse and therefore we do not subscribe to the said finding. 36. We note that the ld. AR cited plethora of the case laws to bolster his claim which are not being repeated again since it has already been incorporated in the submissions of the ld. AR (supra) and have been duly considered to arrive at our conclusion. The ld. DR could not bring to our notice any case laws to support the impugned decision of the ld. CIT(A)/AO. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition of sale proceeds of the shares as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. We therefore direct the AO to delete the addition. 37. Coming to the next addition of ₹ 43,934/-, i.e., 5% of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. 19. I find the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court, which is the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the assessee, in the case of Prem Pal Gandhi (supra) has observed as under :- 2. The following questions of law have been raised:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 4,11,77,474/- made by the AO on account of sham share transactions ignoring an important aspect that the transaction of shares showing their purchase price at ₹ 11,00,000/- and sale consideration at ₹ 4,23,45,295/- within a period of less than two years/purchases of shares made in cash not cheque that too before shares got dematerialized/worth of the company at the time of purchase/sale of shares not proved-All suggest non-genuineness of the said transaction? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 4,11,77,474/- made by the AO on account of sham share transactions, whereas the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence to indicate for instance that this was a closely held company and that the trading on the National Stock Exchange was manipulated in any manner. 5. In these circumstances, following the judgement in ITA-18-2017, it must be held that there is no substantial question of law in the present appeal. 6. Question (iv) has been dealt with in detail by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Firstly, the documents on which the Assessing Officer relied upon in the appeal were not put to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The CIT (Appeals) nevertheless considered them in detail and found that there was no co-relation between the amounts sought to be added and the entries in those documents. This was on an appreciation of facts. There is nothing to indicate that the same was perverse or irrational. Accordingly, no question of law arises. 7. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. 20. I find the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Shikha Dhawan (supra) has deleted similar addition by observing as under :- 8. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee placed sufficient documentary evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is binding. There is no other material available on record to rebut the claim of the assessee of exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act. 9. Keeping in view of the above discussion and the material on record, in the light of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Meenu Goel vs ITO (supra), I set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition of ₹ 19,51,357/-. The appeal of the assessee is, accordingly, allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 21. I find the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prakash Chand Bhutoria (supra) has dealt with identical issue where the long term capital gain on account of sale of shares of M/s Unno Industries Ltd. was denied by the Assessing Officer on the basis of Investigation Wing of Kolkata and the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 by observing as under :- 8. A perusal of the order of the AO demonstrates that this addition was made merely on suspicion and in a routine and mechanical manner. This is clear from the fact that the AO refers to some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action. However, the demat account given the statement of transactions from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005 i.e. relevant for the assessment year under appeal (2005-06) are before us. There cannot be any doubt about the transaction as has been observed by the assessing officer. The transactions were as per norms under controlled by the Securities Transaction Tax, brokerage service tax and cess, which were already paid. They were complied with. All the transactions were through bank. There is no iota of evidence over the above transactions as it were through demat format. Hence, we agree with the given findings of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in accepting the transactions as genuine too. In view of the fact findings we cannot reappreciate, recording is such, cannot be said to be perverse as it is not fact finding of the ld. Tribunal alone. The commissioner of Income Tax came to the same fact finding. Concurrent fact finding itself makes the story of perversity, unbelievable. The D Bench of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Gautam Kumar Pincha vs. ITO, in I.T.A. No. 569/Kol/2017 dated 15.11.2017 at para 19 onwards held as follows: (i) M/s Classic Growers Ltd. vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (v) CIT V. Andaman Timbers Industries Limited [ITA No. 721 of 2008] (Cal HC) In this case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court affirmed the decision of this Tribunal wherein the loss suffered by the Assessee was allowed since the AO failed to bring on record any evidence to suggest that the sale of shares by the Assessee were not genuine. (vi) CIT V. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal [2009- TMI-34738 (Cal HC) in ITA No. 22 of 2009 dated 29.4.2009] - In this case the Assessee claimed exemption of income from Long Term Capital Gains. However, the AO, based on the information received by him from Calcutta Stock Exchange found that the transactions were not recorded thereat. He therefore held that the transactions were bogus. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, affirmed the decision of the Tribunal wherein it was found that the chain of transactions entered into by the assessee have been proved, accounted for, documented and supported by evidence. It was also found that the assessee produced the contract notes, details of demat accounts and produced documents showing all payments were received by the assessee through banks. On these facts, the appeal of the revenue was summarily dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA No.620 of 2008 is dismissed. 8.5. We note that the ld. AR cited plethora of the case laws to bolster his claim which are not being repeated again since it has already been incorporated in the submissions of the ld. AR (supra) and have been duly considered by us to arrive at our conclusion. The ld. DR could not bring to our notice any case laws to support the impugned decision of the ld. CIT(A)/AO. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition of sale proceeds of the shares as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the addition. 9. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The A bench of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Shaleen Khemani in I.T.A. No. 1945/Kol/2014 dated 18.10.2017 at para 9.1. to 9.4 held as follows: 9.1 We further find that the transaction of sale of shares by the assessee was duly backed by all evidences including Contract Notes, Demat Statement, Bank Account reflecting the transactions, the Stock Brokers have confirmed the transactions, the Stock Exchange has confirmed the transactions, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allegations against the broker, but for that reason alone the assessee cannot be held liable. On this point the Tribunal held - As a matter of fact the AO doubted the integrity of the broker or the manner in which the broker operation as per the statement of one of the directors of the broker firm and also AO observed that assessee had not furnished any explanation in respect of the intention of showing trading of shares only in three penny stocks. AO relied the loss of ₹ 25,30,396/- only on the basis of information submitted by the Stock fictitious. AO has also not doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee. AO's observation and conclusion are merely based on the information representative. Therefore on such basis no disallowance can be made and accordingly we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A), who has rightly allowed the claim of assessee. Thus ground No. 1 of the revenue is dismissed. We agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal on this point also. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The suggested questions, in our opinion do not raise any substantial question of law. 9.3. We therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and other case laws also relied upon by the ld AR and findings given thereon would apply to the facts of the instant case. The ld DR was not able to furnish any contrary cases to this effect. Hence we hold that the ld AO was not justified in assessing the sale proceeds of shares of SOICL as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act and therefore we uphold the order of the ld CITA and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. Applying the proposition of law laid down in all the above referred cases, the facts of this case, I find force in the submission of the assessee and there are backed by evidence. I also find that the revenue has not based its finding on in any evidence. In view of the above discussion the addition made u/s 68 of the Act is hereby deleted. 22. Since the facts of the instant case are identical to the facts of the cases decided by the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court and the Delhi and Kolkata Benches of the Tribunal, therefore, respectfully following the above decisions, I set-aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt. Ltd. in ITA No. 4151/Del./2010 order dated 25.01.2012. Reliance was also placed on the following cases laws :- 14 4325 4326/ Del/2009 1. CIT vs. Sh. Udit Narain Aggarwal, ITA No. 560 of 2009, dt. 12.12.2012 2. CIT vs. Sudeep Goenka, ITA No. 468 of 2009, dt. 3.01.2013. 3. CIT vs. Anirudh Narain Aggarwal, ITA No. 195 of 2010, dt. 16.01.2013. It was pointed out that the same issue has been decided by the I.T.A.T. in assessee's own case in I.T.A.T. No. 1584/Del./2009 for the A.Y. 2002-03 vide order dated 13.11.2009, in assessee's favour (copy of the order was furnished which is placed on record) 12. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the assessee purchased the shares in earlier years which were shown as investment in the books of accounts and reflected in the Asset Side of the Balance Sheet , out of those investments (copy which is placed at page no. 23 and 24 of the assessee's paper book), the assessee sold certain investments and accounted for the profit / loss and offered the same for taxation. In the present case, the amount in question was neith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of 16 4325 4326/ Del/2009 assessment year 2003-04, shall apply mutatis mutandis for assessment year 2004-05. 12. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal C.I.T. vs Jatin Investment Pvt. Ltd. [2017 ] TMI 342 (Delhi) held as follows :- 4. The ITAT agreed with the conclusions of the CIT (A) upon its independent examination of the record. It also discounted the Revenue's submissions that the investment shown in the book of accounts and reflected as assets in the side of the balance sheet, should have been properly treated and that in the absence of such treatment .Section 68 applies. The ITAT rejected this contention and held - based upon the principles enunciated in CIT v. Vishaf Holding Capital Pvt. Ltd. (order of this Court dated 9.8.2010) that the invocation of Section'68 in the circumstances is unwarranted. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue reiterated the grounds cited in some of the contentions made before the ITAT. Learned counsel especially emphasized on the submission that the incorrect reflection of the receipts in the balance sheet belied the true nature of the receipts as a justification for the application of Section 68 . 6. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
