9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants. The PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments were placed on AO's record. Accordingly all the three conditions as required u/s. 68 of the Act i.e. the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was placed before the AO and the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him. Without doing so, the addition made by the AO is based on conjectures and surmises cannot be justified. In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, no addition was warranted under Section 68 - Decided in favour of assessee. - IT APPEAL NO. 1636 (KOL.) OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2019 - A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member M.D. Shah, Adv. for the Appellant. Jayanta Khanna, JCIT for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), 2, Kolkata dated 24-06-2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of ₹ 5.60,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ₹ 20,000/- 18/01/2013- ₹ 20,000/- Sitam Ram Sharma 16/05/2012 - ₹ 20,000/- 12/09/2012 - ₹ 20,000/- 22/01/2013- ₹ 20,000/- Tikam Chand Sharma 20/07/2012- ₹ 20,000/- 13/09/2012 - ₹ 20,000/- 20/02/2013- ₹ 20,000/- TOTAL ₹ 5,60,000/- 4. According to the AO since all the payments were made in cash, he issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to all the parties/persons. The AO acknowledges that pursuant to the notice issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act, all the share applicants filed the following evidences:- a. Balance sheet b. ITR acknowledgement for the A.Y 2013-14 c. Bank statements 5. However, according to the AO the share subscribers failed to explain sources of cash payments. So, he added back the entire amount of share capital and premium to the tune of ₹ 5,60,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sheets filed by them, which shows that share subscribers were creditworthy still did not accept the genuineness of the transaction. We note that before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee had brought to the notice the following detailed facts about each of the share subscribers, which are discussed below:- (a) Berisal Singh: This Individual made share application for ₹ 60,000/- in the appellant company. The share application was made by cash. This Individual has duly filed his return of income before ITO Ward 45(3), Kolkata and was having PAN ALJPS0552K. This Individual was having a capital of ₹ 8,76,455/- as on 31/03/2013 and ₹ 7,53,689/- as on 31/03/2012 respectively. The copy of the account statement ended 31/03/2013 and 31/03/2012 were made available in the paper book. The copy of the ledger account was also made available in the paper book. The copy of the IT Acknowledgement for the Asst. year ended 31/03/2012 is available in the paper book. The copies of the share application forms are also available in the paper book. All the relevant documents for this Individual are available on pages 67-74 of the paper book. (b) Dasrathi Biswal: This Individual made shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms are also available in the paper book. All the relevant documents for this Individual are available on pages 89-97 of the paper book. (e) Mahabir Prasad Palode: This Individual made share application for ₹ 60,000/- in the appellant company. The was made by cash. This Individual has duly filed his return of income before ITO Ward 44(4). Kolkata and was having PAN AFVPP5929B. This individual was having a capital of ₹ 7,91,862/- as on 31/03/2013 and ₹ 6,84,902/- as on 31/03/2012 respectively. The copy of the account statements for the year ended 31/03/2013 and 31/03/2012 was made available in the paper book The copy of the ledger account also made available in the paper book. The copy of the IT Acknowledgement for the Asst years ended 31/03/2012 and 31/03/2012 was made available in the paper book. The copies of the share application forms are also available in the paper book. All the relevant documents for this company are available on pages 98-105 of the paper book. (f) Parmeshwar Lal Tiwati: This Individual made share application for ₹ 80,000/- in the appellant company. The share application was made by cash. This Individual has duly filed his return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) Tikam Chand Sharma: This Individual made shore application for ₹ 60,000/- in the appellant company. The share application was made by cash. This Individual has duly filed his return of income before ITO Ward 45(3), Kolkata and was having PAN BATPS2701. This Individual was having a capital of ₹ 8,12,516/- as on 31/03/2013 and ₹ 6,98,776/- as on 31/03/2012 respectively. The copy of the account statements for the year ended 31/03/2013 and 31/03/2012 was made available in the paper book. The copy of the ledger account also made available in the paper book. The copy of the IT Acknowledgement for the Asst.year ended 31/03/2012 is available in the paper book. The copies of the share application forms are also available in the paper book. All the relevant documents for this Individual are available on pages 131-138 of the paper book 10. From the above details and the paper book filed which was also before the assessing officer it will be evident that in case of all the share applicants the (i) Share Application form and allotment letter is available (ii) The Share Applicants are income tax assessee and are filing their return of income (iii) the bank accounts belo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n shown to the ld. CIT(A) that all the 9 (nine) share applicants had enough creditworthiness to give amount ranging ₹ 40,000/- to ₹ 80,000/- and their bank statements showing the amount being withdrawn, then also he did not accept the claim of the assessee and found that assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions. 13. We note that in this case all the aforesaid shareholders had submitted the following relevant details as called for and had confirmed the transaction with the assessee company. The evidence which were filed before the AO included the following details.- (a) Income Tax Return of the share holders (b) Confirmation given by the share holders (c) Share Application Forms (d) Share Allotment Letters (e) Copy of the bank account of the share holders (f) Transaction with the appellant was duly highlighted in the bank statement (g) Balance sheet (h) PAN details 14. Taking note of the aforesaid documents we are of the opinion that assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share subscribers and the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act was not warranted. To come to this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 68. Relevant observations at pages 369 and 370 of this report are reproduced hereunder:- Merely because summons issued to some of the creditors could not be served or they failed to attend before the Assessing Officer, cannot be a ground to treat the loans taken by the assessee from those creditors as non-genuine in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation [1986] 159 ITR 78. In the said decision the Supreme Court has observed that when the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR numbers, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the Revenue's case and in order to sustain the addition the Revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the lack of creditworthiness and mere non-compliance of summons issued by the Assessing Officer under section 131, by the alleged creditors will not be sufficient to draw and adverse inference against the assessee. in the case of six creditors who appeared before the Assessing Officer and whose statements were recorded by the Assessing Officer, they have admitted having advanced loans to the assessee by account payee cheques and in case the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arily be kept confined by the Assessing Officer within the transactions, which took place between the assessee and his creditor, but that the same may be extended to the transactions, which have taken place between the creditor and his sub-creditor. Thus, while the Assessing Officer is under section 68, free to look into the source(s) of the creditor and/or of the sub-creditor, the burden on the assessee under section 68 is definitely limited. This limit has been imposed by section 106 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows: Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.-When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden) of proving that fact is upon him. ** ** ** What, thus, transpires from the above discussion is that white section 106 of the Evidence Act limits the onus of the assessee to the extent of his proving the source from which he has received the cash credit, section 68 gives ample freedom to the Assessing Officer to make inquiry not only into the source(s)of the creditor but also of his (creditor's) sub-creditors and prove, as a result, of such inquiry, that the money received by the assessee, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reditor, by way of cheque in the form of loan and in such a case, if the creditor fails to satisfy as to how he had actually received the said amount and happened to keep the same in the bank, the said amount cannot be treated as income of the assessee from undisclosed source. In other words, the genuineness as well as the creditworthiness of a creditor have to be adjudged vis-a-vis the transactions, which he has with the assessee. The reason why we have formed the opinion that it is not the business of the assessee to find out the actual source or sources from where the creditor has accumulated the amount, which he advances, as loan, to the assessee is that so far as an assessee is concerned, he has to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor vis-a-vis the transactions which had taken place between the assessee and the creditor and not between the creditor and the sub-creditors, for, it is not even required under the law for the assessee to try to find out as to what sources from where the creditor had received the amount, his special knowledge under section 106 of the Evidence Act may very well remain confined only to the transactions, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the hands of the creditors from the hands of the sub-creditors, had actually been received by the sub-creditors from the assessee. In the absence of any such evidence on record, the Assessing Officer could not have treated the said amounts as income derived by the appellant from undisclosed sources. The learned Tribunal seriously fell into error in treating the said amounts as income derived by the appellant from. undisclosed sources merely on the failure of the sub-creditors to prove their creditworthiness.' 19. Further, in the case of CIT v. S. Kamaljeet Singh [2005] 147 Taxman 18(All.) their lordships, on the issue of discharge of assessee's onus in relation to a cash credit appearing in his books of account, has observed and held as under:- 4. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the assessee has discharged the onus which was on him to explain the nature and source of cash credit in question. The assessee discharged the onus by placing (i) confirmation letters of the cash creditors; (ii) their affidavits; (iii) their full addresses and GIR numbers and permanent account numbers. It has found that the assessee's burden stood discharged and so, no addition t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. The court held as follows: 8. Assailing the said judgment of the learned Tribunal learned counsel for the appellant submits that Income-tax Officer did not consider the material evidence showing the creditworthiness and also other documents, viz., confirmatory statements of the persons, of having advanced cash amount as against the supply of bidis. These evidence were duly considered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Therefore, the failure of the person to turn up pursuant to the summons issued to any witness is immaterial when the material documents made available, should have been accepted and indeed in subsequent year the same explanation was accepted by the Income-tax Officer. He further contended that when the Tribunal has relied on the entire judgment of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), therefore, it was not proper to take up some portion of the judgment of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and to ignore the other portion of the same. The judicial propriety and fairness demands that the entire judgment both favourable and unfavourable should have been considered. By not doing so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. 11. The Tribunal must, in deciding an appeal, consider with due care all the material facts and record its finding on all contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner, in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. It is also ruled in the said judgment at page 465 that if the Tribunal does not discharge the duty in the manner as above then it shall be assumed the judgment of the Tribunal suffers from manifest infirmity. 12. Taking inspiration from the Supreme Court observations we are constrained to hold in this matter that the Tribunal has not adjudicated upon the case of the assessee in the light of the evidence as found by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We also found no single word has been spared to up set the fact finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that there are materials to show the cash credit was received from various persons and supply as against cash credit also made. 13. Hence, the judgment and order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. We restore the judgment and order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeal is allowed. 22. When a question as to the creditwo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law. Hence, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment. 24. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court while relying on the case of Lovely Exports, in the appeal of CIT v. Roseberry Mercantile (P.) Ltd. [ITAT No. 241 of 2010 dated 10- 01-2011] has held: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order as the transaction entered into by the assessee was a scheme for laundering black money into white money or accounted money and the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the assessee had not established the genuineness of the transaction. It appears from the record that in the assessment proceedings it was noticed that the assessee company during the year under consideration had brought ₹ 4, 00, 000/- and ₹ 20,00,000/- towards share capital and share premium respectively amounting to ₹ 24,00, 000/- from four shareholders being private limited companies. The Assessing Officer on his part called for the details from the assessee and also from the share applicants and analyzed the facts and ultimately observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition of ₹ 52, 03,500/- to the income of the assessee company during the Assessment Year in question. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals found that there were as many as 2155 allottees, whose names, addresses and respective shares allocation had been disclosed. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, further found that the Assessee Company received the applications through bankers to the issue, who had been appointed under the guidelines of the Stock Exchange and the Assessee Company had been allotted shares on the basis of allotment approved by the Stock Exchange. The Assessee Company had duly filed the return of allotment with the Registrar of Companies, giving complete particulars of the allottees. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that inquires had confirmed the existence of most of the shareholders at the addresses intimated to the Assessing Officer, but the Assessing Officer took the view that their investment in the Assessee Company was not genuine, on the basis of some extraneous reasons. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) took note of the observation of the Assessing Officer that enquiry conducted by the Income Tax Inspector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03, 500/- to the income of the assessee as made by the Assessing Officer. We are of the view that there is no question of law involved in this appeal far less any substantial question of law. The learned Tribunal has concurred with the learned Commissioner on facts and found that there were materials to show that the assessee had disclosed the particulars of the shareholders. The factual findings cannot be interfered with, in appeal. We are of the view that once the identity and other relevant particulars of shareholders are disclosed, it is for those shareholders to explain the source of their funds and not for the assessee company to show where from these shareholders obtained funds. 26. Further, our attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in the case of CIT v. Leonard Commercial (P.) Ltd. in [ITAT NO 114 of 2011], dated 13-6-2011] wherein the Court held as follows: The only question raised in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal below erred in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 8,52,000/-, ₹ 91,50,000/- and ₹ 13,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of share ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subscribers has thrown light as to the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share subscribers, which we have discussed at para 6 (a) to (i) supra. 28. From the details as aforesaid which emerges from the paper book filed before us as well as before the lower authorities, it is vivid that all the share applicants are (i) income tax assessee's, (ii) they are filing their return of income, (iii) the share application form and allotment letter is available on record, (iv) the details of the bank accounts belonging to the share applicants and their bank statements, (vi) the applicants are having creditworthiness which is represented by a capital as noted above. 29. As noted from the judicial precedents cited above, where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee then there is a duty casted upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of credit found in his books. In the instant case, the credit is in the form of receipt of share capital with premium from share applicants. The nature of receipt towards share capital is seen from the entries passed in the respective balance sheets of the companies as share capital and investments. In respect of sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns and perused the materials available on record including the detailed paper book filed by the assessee. The facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. We find that the assessee had given the complete details about the share applicants clearly establishing their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction proved beyond doubt and had duly discharged its onus in full. Nothing prevented the Learned AO to make enquiries from the assessing officers of the concerned share applicants for which every details were very much made available to him by the assessee. We find that the reliance placed by the Learned Ld. CIT(1) on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ud reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) is very well founded, wherein, it has been very clearly held that the only obligation of the company receiving the share application money is to prove the existence of the shareholders and for which the assessee had discharged the onus of proving their existence and also the source of share application money received. 3.4.1.We also find that the impugned issue is also covered by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the shareholders. The Learned AO on analyzing all the balance sheets observed that the shareholders have paltry income and small savings and none of them have any bank account and huge cash balances were shown in their hands out of which Pay orders were obtained. Based on this, the Learned AO concluded that these shareholders do not have creditworthiness to invest in the assessee company and brought the entire sum of ₹ 57,00,000/- to tax as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4.2. On first appeal, the Learned CIT(A) observed that entire share application monies of ₹ 57,00,000/- we received during the previous year 2004-05 relevant to Asst Year 2005-06 from 20 persons and the shares were allotted to them during the asst year under appeal. He observed that the assessee had furnished details of the share applicants giving the date wise receipts, mode of payment, amount, name, address, income tax returns, PA No. of share applicants along with their balance sheet. The Learned CITA also observed that the assessee in its reply to show cause notice before the Learned AO had requested him to use his power and authority for the physical appearance of the shareholders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TO v. R.B Horticulture Animal Projects Co. Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 632 (Kol) of 2011, dated 13-01-2016]. In this the decision the Ld. Tribunal held as follows: 6. We have heard the Learned DR and when the case was called on for hearing , none was present on behalf of the assessee. However, we find from the file that the assessee had filed a detailed paper book and written submissions. Hence the case is disposed off based on the arguments of the Learned DR and written submissions and paper book already available on record. The facts stated in the Learned CIT(A) were not controverted by the Learned DR before us. We find that the assessee had given the complete details about the share applicants clearly establishing their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction proved beyond doubt and had duly discharged its onus in full. Nothing prevented the Learned AO to make enquiries from the assessing officers of the concerned share applicants for which every details were very much made available to him by the assessee. We find that the reliance placed by the Learned CITA on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports (p.) Ltd. reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held, dismissing the appeal, that the additional burden was on the department to show that even if the share applicants did not have the means to make the investment, the investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. No substantial question of law arose. 6.3. We find that the argument of the Learned DR to set aside this issue to the file of the Learned AO for verification of share subscribers would not serve any purpose as the ratio decided in the above cases is that in any case, no addition could be made in the hands of the recipient assessee. In view of the aforesaid findings and respectfully following the decision of the apex court (supra), Jurisdictional High Court (supra) and Delhi High Court (supra), we find no infirmity in the order of the Learned CIT(A) and accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. (c) The Ld. ITAT Kolkata in [IT Appeal No.1061 (Ko1) of 2012 dated 05-02-2016] in the case of ITO v. Steel Emporium Ltd. In this the decision the Ld. Tribunal held as follows: 10. We have heard both the rival parties and perused the mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts also to explain the alleged discrepancy in the address. The AO has not brought any material on account of record to disbelief the evidences furnished with him and treat the transaction as not genuine. The assessee submitted the following material at the time of assessment. (a) Copy of share applications from the share applicants (copies enclosed) (b) Copy of Form 2 filed with Registrar of Companies, West Bengal (copy enclosed) (c) Copy of Form 18 about the Registered Office of the applicants for change of address subsequent to the date of allotment, i.e. 31.03.2009 (copies enclosed) (d) Members register (e) Share application Allotment Register (f) Copy of board resolution. (g) Replies from Share applicants to the notice u/s. 133(6) issued to them by the AO seeking information and documents about the sources and to examine their identity, genuineness of the transaction and their creditworthiness. (copy enclosed). (h) Copy of audited accounts. i) Copy of bank statements. (i) Copy of Income tax acknowledgment of return filed for AY 2009- (j) Copy of PAN Card. (k) Details of sources of funds. (l) Copy of covering letter for delivery of shares. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statements for as well as copy of their assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the I. T Act for AY 2005-06. In the case of M/s. Jewellock Trexim Pvt. Ltd. the assessment for AY 2005-06 was completed by the ITO Ward 9(3), Kolkata and the assessments in the case of M/s. Navalco Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Shree Shyam Trexim Pvt. Ltd. for A. Y.2005-06 and AY.2004-05 respectively were completed by the ITO, Ward 9(4), Kolkata. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the AO was not justified in holding that the share applicant companies were not in existence. The assessment orders were completed on the address as provided by the appellant company in the course of assessment proceedings. It is not known as to how the AO's inspector had reported that the aforesaid companies were not in existence at the given address. Since the appellant company had provided sufficient documentary evidences in support of its claim of receipt of share application money, I am of the opinion that the no addition u/s.68 could be made in the hands of appellant company. On going through the various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, it is observed that the view taken as above is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Gangeshwari Metal (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 597 of 2012, dated 21-1-2012]. In this case the assessee had received share application money of ₹ 55.50 lacs during the year in question. The assessee filed the complete names, addresses of the share applicants, confirmatory letters from them, copies of bank statements of both the company as well as the share applicants and copies of share application forms. In spite of the aforesaid documentary evidences the AO held the explanation to be unacceptable and treated the share application as unexplained cash credit thereby making addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On appeal the CIT(Appeals) deleted the aforesaid addition holding that the identity of the share applicants stood established beyond doubt, all the payments were through account payee cheques and the share applicants were regular income-tax assessees. The CIT(Appeals) further held that the Revenue did not bring any evidence on record to suggest that the share application had been received by the assessee from its own undisclosed sources nor any material was brought on record to show that .the applicants were bogus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove extract, two types of cases have been indicated. One in which the Assessing Officer carries out the exercise which is required in law and the other in which the Assessing Officer 'sits back with folded hands' till the assessee exhausts all the evidence or material in his possession and then comes forward to merely reject the same on the presumptions. The present case falls in the latter category. Here the Assessing Officer after noting the facts, merely rejected the same. This would be apparent from the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order to the following effect:- Investigation made by the Investigation Wing of the department clearly showed that this was nothing but a sham transaction of accommodation entry. The assessee was asked to explain as to why the said amount of ₹ 1,11,50,000/- may not be added to its income. In response, the assessee has submitted that there is no such credit in the books of the assessee. Rather, the assessee company has received the share application money for allotment of its share. It was stated that the actual amount received was ₹ 55,50,000/- and not ₹ 1,11,50,000/- as mentioned in the notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificates by auditors etc. Unfortunately, the Assessing Officer chose to base himself merely on the general inference to be drawn from the reading of the investigation report and the statement of Mr. Mahes Garg. To elevate the inference which can be drawn on the basis of reading of such material into judicial conclusions would be improper, more so when the assessee produced material. The least that the Assessing Officer ought to have done was to enquire into the matter by, if necessary, invoking his powers under Section 131 summoning the share applicants or directors. No effort was made in that regard. In the absence of any such finding that the material disclosed was untrustworthy or lacked credibility the Assessing Officer merely concluded on the basis of enquiry report, which collected certain facts and the statements of Mr.Mahesh Garg that the income sought to be added fell within the description of S.68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal in this case accords with the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lovely Exports (supra). The decision in this case is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
