M/S. INTER SECURITIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as in facts of the case by confirming the addiitons made by Ld. A.O. who treated the share application money including premium of Rs.3,59,00,000/- as bogus and added back the same to the total income of the appellant u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Inter Securities Pvt. Ltd.

That the appellant craves leave to add/or amend any ground of this appeal.”

Facts in brief is that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading in shares and interest income. Return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 was filed on 28/08/2012 declaring income of Rs.67,912/-. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had issued share capital of Rs.35,90,000/- and also charged premium of Rs.3,23,10,000/-. The said share application money was received through private limited companies. The assessee was asked to explain the alleged sum in terms of provisions of Section 68 of the Act by discharging its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants as well as the genuineness of the share transactions. Though various details were filed by the assessee but the ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied and made addition u/s 68 of the Act coupled with disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and assessed income at Rs.3,59,87,910/-.

Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and furnished all the relevant documents including financial statements, identity proof and income tax returns, confirmation letters etc.. The ld. CIT(A) dealt with the financials of these companies but commonly observed that all these companies have very meagre income and do not carry out any business activity and the investment in the assessee company do not commensurate with the income earned by the share applicants. The ld. CIT(A) further referring to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Blessings Commercial Pvt. Ltd. in ITA

Aggrieved, now the assessee is before the Tribunal.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the detailed paper book filed which interalia includes copy of the audited financial statements, bank statements, certificate of incorporation, income tax return, master data from portal of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, PAN Cards, copies of documents representing source of source of the shareholder companies. Further he also stated that the assessee has discharged its primary onus by furnishing all relevant details and no discrepancy has been found in the said details. It was also submitted that all the alleged share applicants were having sufficient funds in the form of share capital and reserve and surplus to cover up the investments made in the equity share capital of the assessee company. He also stated that all the directors of the appellant company gave their deposition as required by the summon u/s 131 of the Act and submitted the necessary documents. He further stated that all the share applicants have given the details of the source of source which means that the source of funds which have been invested in the assessee company has been explained in the reply directed filed to the Assessing Officer. It was also submitted that with regard to the 14 share subscribers, complete documents/evidence have been submitted before the lower authorities which are more than sufficient to prove the 4 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Inter Securities Pvt. Ltd. identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transactions. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- 1) ITO vs M/s. KDG Projects Pvt. Ltd.; ITA No. 711 of 2019 order dt. 02/11/2022 2) Urmila Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO; ITA No. 33/Kol/2020 order dt. 20/09/2022 3) DCIT, vs. Narsingh Ispat Limited; ITA No. 225/Kol/2023 order dt. 26/07/2023 4) ITO vs. M.D. Ornaments Pvt. Ltd.; ITA No. 646/Kol/2020 order dt. 19/04/2023 5) Technico Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT; ITA No. 1348/Chd/2017 order dt. 15/02/2019

On the other hand, the ld. D/R, vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities and stated that the alleged share applicants are paper companies and the investments made in the equity shares of the assessee company is in the nature of accommodation entry by way of which assessee has routed its unaccounted income in its books through share applicants money.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed on record.

Addition u/s 68 of the Act at Rs. 3.59 Crores is in dispute before us wherein both the lower authorities have held that the assessee had been unable to explain the nature and source of this share application money which included share capital and share premium totaling to Rs.3.59 Crores, on account of issue of share of face value of Rs.10/- and premium of Rs.90/- received from 14 share subscribers. We notice that the assessee has furnished following documents/information/evidence of all the alleged share subscribers:-

All the above details stood furnished before both the lower authorities. As far as assessee is concerned, in terms of provisions of Section 68 of the Act, it has discharged the primary onus by furnishing all the documents and details relevant/necessary to explain the identity, creditworthiness of share applicants and genuineness of the transactions. Once these documents have been filed then, the burden shifts over the revenue authorities and they have to examine those details and find out any discrepancy in such documents and then confront the assessee. Perusal of the impugned order as well as the assessment order reveals that no such discrepancies have been noticed by the assessing authorities except giving general remarks about the income and business turnover. In the paper book, the assessee had filed

So far as the share premium of Rs.90/- charged by the assessee is concerned, we notice that as on 31/03/2011, the total of share capital & reserve surplus held by the assessee is Rs. 1,00,88,262/-. For computing the book value as on 31/03/2011, we need to divide total of share capital and reserve and surplus with 110000 equity shares issued upto 31/03/2011. Thus the book value as on 31/03/2011 would come to Rs.91.65 (Rs.1,00,81,262/- (÷) Rs.1,10,000/-). The share application money received during financial year 2011-12 is Rs.100/-, which comprises of share premium of Rs.90/- charged on equity shares of face value of Rs.10/-. Considering the book value, per share as on 31/03/2011 at Rs.91.65, we find that the assessee has not charged any exorbitant share premium from the share applicants and the share premium charged is not highly excessive in comparison to the book value. Therefore, on one hand, the share applicants have sufficient funds to explain the investment, so 11 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Inter Securities Pvt. Ltd. as to prove the identity and creditworthiness and on the other hand, the genuineness of the transaction is also proved as a fair investment has been made in the assessee company. Therefore, since the criteria to prove all the three ingredients i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transactions have been fulfilled by the assessee so as to prove the nature and source of alleged sum, no addition is called for u/s 68 of the Act.

We find support from the various decisions as referred by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the list of case-law (supra). We, find that this Tribunal in the case of DCIT, vs. Narsingh Ispat Limited; ITA No. 225/Kol/2023 order dt. 26/07/2023, under identical facts and issue held as under:- “7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of addition of Rs.19,14,50,000/- made by the assessing officer u/s 68 of the Act. We notice that the assessing officer when called for the details from the respective share applicants, namely, M/s. Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Seaview Agencies Pvt. Ltd., for the sum of Rs.10,52,00,000/- and Rs.8,62,50,000/-, received against the issue of equity capital during the year, both the share applicants of replied to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act and have filed complete details including bank statements, income tax returns, audited balance sheets, confirmation of accounts etc.. It was also submitted that the alleged share applicants are part of the assessee’s group. However, when the summons under section 131 of the Act were not complied by the directors of the assessee company, the impugned additions were made under section 68 of the Act. Thereafter when the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), filing complete details and also stating that the source of source of the alleged sum is duly proved with the fact that both the alleged share applicants have received equity share capital and share premium in the preceding years and those years have been assessed to tax and even addition has been made in the hands of M/s. Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd., towards unexplained share capital at Rs.14,80,00,000/- in AY 2009-10. Based on these submissions, the ld. CIT(A), deleted the impugned addition by observing as follows:- “3.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submission of the appellant. I have also gone through the copies of the documents (order sheet etc.) submitted by the appellant. Perusal of the certified copy of the order sheet shows that the authorised representative of the assessee has 12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Inter Securities Pvt. Ltd. attended before the AO on 25.07.2014, 05.12.2014, 06.02.2015, 17.02.2015, 25.02.2015 and 03.03.2015. Thus, AO's observation that appellant has not fully cooperated in the assessment proceedings is not correct. Further, appellant has also submitted the certified copy of the details submitted by M/s. Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Seaview Agencies Pvt. Ltd. in the office of the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thus, it is apparent that the appellant and the said two shareholders had filed all the details during the assessment proceedings. AO's allegation that the said shareholders did not attend personally may be a matter of debate. Appellant submits that the Directors of the two investing companies had attended during assessment proceedings and as per AO's directions, details were filed in DAK. In any case, AO has not raised issue relating to non attendance of the Directors in the note sheet. Another crucial observation of the Assessing Officer that share capital has been received from outsiders is contrary to the facts. M/s. Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Seaview Agencies Pvt. Ltd. are Group companies and the sister concerns of the assessee company. While questioning the motive of investments made by the said two companies, AO has observed that investment made by them were not justified on the basis of the performance of the assessee company. However, AO has overlooked the fact that assessee company had a genuine running business of manufacturing and trading of iron and steel and for the current year it had filed return showing total income of Rs. 1,74,09,340/-. Thus, the assessee company appears to have good performance record. In any case, investment decisions within the group concerns are not purely guided by the performance of the investee company. Rather, these are based on holistic and strategic view for the betterment of all the group concerns. Now coming to the identity and creditworthiness of the two shareholders, it is observed that their identities are not in doubt. These two concerns are companies having common Directors with the assessee company and they have been regularly filing their returns of income. Appellant has submitted assessment order for M/s. Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2009-10. Similarly, appellant has also submitted the assessment orders in the case of M/s. Seaview Agencies Pvt. Ltd. for AY: 2011-12 and 2012-13. This shows that both these companies have their separate existence and these have been verified independently by their respective AOS Regarding creditworthiness of the two parties, it is notice that M/s. Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd. had received share capital of Rs. 1,4,80,00,000/- in AY: 2009-10 and in scrutiny order u/s 144/263/143(3)/147 dated 12.03.2015, entire receipt of share capital has been added in the hands of M/s. Honesty Dealers Pvt Ltd. Further, perusal of the Balance-sheet of M/s. Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd. as on 31.03.2012 shows that major chunk of the share capital received in AY: 2009-10 has been invested in the shares of the assessee company in AY: 2012-13. Thus, the investments in the shares of assessee company, amounting to Rs.10,52,00,000/- has been out of the share capital raised in 13 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Inter Securities Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2009-10 and in AY: 2009-10, entire share capital raised by M/s. Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd. has been added in the hands of the party. Thus, the creditworthiness of M/s. Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd. vis- à-vis the investments in the shares of the assessee company gets established. There is a clear link between raising of share capital in AY: 2009-10 by M/s. Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd. and investing a major part of that share capital into the shares of assessee company in AY: 2012-13. As addition has already been made in the hands of M/s. Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd. for the amount received as share capital, another addition for the same amount cannot be sustained in the hands of the assessee company when the linkages between the two are apparent from records. Now coming to the M/s. Seaview Agencies Pvt. Ltd., it is noticed that this company had also raised huge share capital in AY: 2009-10 and the source of investments in the shares of the assessee company in the current year is the share capital raised by M/s. Seaview Agencies Pvt. Ltd. in AY: 2009-

Although, there was no scrutiny in its case for AY: 2009-10 but in the subsequent years, i.e., AY: 2011-12 and AY: 2012-13, assessment proceedings were reopened on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and orders w/s. 147 read with section 143(3) have been passed on 21.12.2018 and 11.12.2018 respectively for assessment year 2011-12 and assessment year 2012-13. In the assessment year 2011-12 information was received from the Investigation Wing regarding unaccounted income of Rs. 3,00,000/- received by M/s. Seaview Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and accordingly addition of this amount was made by treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Similarly, for assessment year 2012-13, there was information from Investigation Wing regarding unaccounted income of Rs 20,00,000/- and accordingly this amount was added to the total income. Perusal of the assessment orders for these two years shows that AO has not made any adverse comments on the entries in the Balance-sheet. It also appears that even the Investigation Wing has not found any adverse evidence against share capital raised by M/s. Seaview Agencies Pvt. Ltd. in assessment year 2009-10. Otherwise, it would have informed the AO for necessary remedial measures, as has been done in assessment year 2011-12 and assessment year 2012-13. Thus, the Balance-sheet of M/s. Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd. cannot be questioned without any adverse evidence. There is nothing on record to suggest that the share capital raised by M/s. Seaview Agencies Pvt. Ltd. in assessment year 2009- 10 was not genuine. Under the circumstances, investments made in the shares of the assessee company in assessment year 2012-13 (current year) cannot be questioned, as the creditworthiness of M/s. Seaview Agencies Pvt. Ltd. has been established. All the investments in the share capital of the assessee company have come through banking channels. The identities and creditworthiness of the investors are not in any doubt and the transactions are genuine. Thus, all the three ingredients of section 68, they are identity, creditworthiness and 14 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Inter Securities Pvt. Ltd. genuineness of transactions, gets established. Under the circumstances, there is no case for any addition u/s.68 of the Act. Hence, in view of the above discussion, AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.19,14,50,000/-.”

On going through the above findings as well as the available records so far as the alleged sum of Rs.10,52,00,000/- received from Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd., is concerned, we find that the sum of Rs.14,80,00,000/- was raised by Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd., during the financial year 2008-09 towards share capital and share premium. Thereafter, Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd., was subjected to scrutiny proceedings and vide order dt. 12/03/2015, passed under section 144/263/143 (3)/147 of the Act, the said sum of Rs.14,80,00,000/- was added. Since the alleged sum has been added in the case of Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd., and the sum received by it was invested in the form of loans and advances and investments, during the year under consideration some of the funds have been received backed by Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd., and has been utilised for investing in the equity share capital of the assessee company. These details have gone uncontroverted at the end of the revenue authorities and it remains an admitted fact that the source of the source stands proved with the details filed before us and, therefore, making an addition again in the hands of the assessee would tantamount to double addition and, therefore, the addition in the year under consideration is not warranted and the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same.

We find support from the decisions of the ITAT, Kolkata in the case of M/s Happy Structure Pvt Ltd (ITA 1977/Kol/2016) wherein on similar facts it was held that:- "Applying the proposition of law laid down in the above referred cases to the facts of this case and keeping in view the fact for the share applicant company have been assessed to tax u/s 143 (3) of the Act and the source of money in question was brought to tax in their hands, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) that no additions can be made in the case of the assessee company"

The ld. CIT(A) duly perused the submissions of the assessee and noted that source of share application money received by the assessee from M/s Honesty Dealers Pvt Ltd has already been added in the hands of the share applicant. Hence, in view of the settled legal position, as the source has already been added, we uphold the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition.

So far as the remaining addition towards alleged share capital of Rs.8.62 cr received from M/s Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd, is concerned, we find that this company also raised equity share capital during the financial year2008-09 and it has been assessed to tax u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act for AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2014-15. Even for AY 2012-13, though the case of M/s Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd., was selected for the limited scrutiny for examining the unaccounted income of Rs.20,00,000/-and for this purpose all the details of M/s Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd. including audited balance sheet and details of share capital were filed before the AO but except for the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- which was found to be 15 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Inter Securities Pvt. Ltd. income escaped from assessment, no other addition was made in the assessment order dated 11/12/2018. This proves that the source of funds utilised for making the alleged investment in equity capital of the assessee company was available with M/s Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd., from AY 2009-10 onwards and that fund has been rotated but it was always available for investment and during the year under consideration part of that fund has been utilised for making investment in the equity capital.

At this juncture we also notice that the assessee company is having a huge turnover and for financial year 2012-13, the same is amounting to Rs.145.38 Crores and net profit from continuing operations is Rs.1.45 Crores (approx.). In the return of income, total income has been declared at Rs.1.74 Crores. We find that the genuineness of the transactions is proved since the investment which has been made by the alleged share applicants is in a profit making company and, therefore, since the future prospect of investments are good, this decision of the share applicant company to invest in the equity of the assessee company is prudent one and, therefore, the genuineness of the transactions is established.

So far as the identity and creditworthiness of both the share applicant companies are concerned, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, it has been established again and again that identity and creditworthiness of both the share applicant companies have been established beyond doubt.

Our view is fortified by the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Dharmvir Merchandise (P.) Ltd. reported in [2023] 149 taxamann.com 221 (Kolkata- Trib.), wherein dealing with the similar issue, this Tribunal considering the facts of the case and judicial precedents deleted the addition u/s 68 of the Act on similar grounds observing as follows:- “9. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Addition u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained share capital and share premium of Rs. 1.40 Cr is in challenge before us. We notice that the assessee company issued fresh share capital during the year of face value of Rs. 10/- and premium of Rs. 240/- per share and received 1.40 Cr from following three companies: Sr Name of the Share Applicant Amount No. Received 1 Everlike Projects Pvt Ltd 50,00,000/- 2 Mahashakti Vintrade Pvt Ltd 50,00,000/- 3 Satyam Plywood Merchandise Pvt Ltd 40,00,000/- TOTAL 1,40,00,000/-

After the case being selected for scrutiny, ld. AO asked the assessee to explain the source of above referred sum of share capital and share application money. In response, the assessee submitted the following documents: i. Party Wise details of share capital raised during the year, ii. Form 2, Form 5 filed with ROC,

Thereafter, summons were issued to the Directors of the share subscriber companies as well as the Directors of the assessee company which were duly served upon the respective persons and the details as called for were filed which included the following: i. Photo Identity and Address Proof, ii. Narration of all debit and credit entries in relevant Bank statements, iii. Copies of all relevant ROC returns, iv. Sources of funds and utilisation of funds, v. Evidence of creditworthiness along with Income Tax Returns filed and vi. Copies of Audited Accounts and Tax Audit Report for the relevant AY.

We further, notice that ld. AO has not pointed out any defect and not questioned the correctness of any of the documents filed by the assessee company, share subscriber companies as well as the Directors. The only ground for making the addition is that the Directors of the assessee company as well as the investor companies have not appeared personally before ld. AO in compliance to the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act and applying the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bisakha Sales Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

So far as reliance placed by ld. AO on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bisakha Sales Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is concerned, we fail to find any merit as the facts of Bisakha Sales Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Firstly for the reason that the case of Bisakha Sales Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was in connection of the revisionary order passed by ld. CIT(A) u/s 263 of the Act where it was alleged that ld. AO has not made proper enquiries with regard to the transaction of share application money received by the company, which however, is not the fact of the instant case where the issue relates to 17 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Inter Securities Pvt. Ltd. assessment proceedings carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act and complete and detailed enquiry has been conducted by ld. AO. In the assessment order, ld. AO has not brought any adverse material which could have remotely suggested that the unaccounted income of the assessee was brought in disguise of the share capital. Therefore, the decision of Bisakha Sales Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable on the present case.

So far as merits of the case are concerned, we find that the assessee has successfully discharged its onus by filing complete details of the share subscriber companies including their bank statement, audited financial statements, Form no. 18 in support of registered office address, source and utilization of funds, copies of ITRs, copies of all relevant company returns. Even the photo identity, address proof of the Directors of the assessee company and the subscriber companies have been filed directly by these Directors to ld. AO. On the basis of these facts undoubtedly the assessee has successfully discharged the onus which lay upon it by producing all the evidences for proving the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the transaction. Merely non-appearance of the Directors cannot be a basis for treating the share application money as unexplained or non-genuine. We find support from the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rohini Builders (supra) relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (supra) (relevant extract: “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 Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the cash amount deposited by those creditors in their bank accounts, the proper course would ^have been to make assessments in the cases of those creditors by treating the cash deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69.”

Our view is supported by Tradelink Carrying (P.) Ltd. vs ITO pronounced on 20.12.2019 reported in [2020] 113 taxmann.com 520 (Kolkata-Trib.), wherein the Hon’ble juri ictional ITAT held that:

Similar view also taken in the case of Satyam Smertex (P.) Ltd vs DCIT reported in [2020] 117 taxmann.com (Kolkata - Trib.) pronounced on 29-05-2020 where the Hon’ble juri ictional ITAT held that:

From the above decision, we note that it has been held again and again by the juri ictional ITAT, Kolkata that in a case, where the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants, the onus shifts on ld. AO to disprove the documents furnished by assessee so as to draw adverse view and in the absence of any investigation, much less gathering of evidence by ld. AO, additions cannot be sustained merely based on inferences drawn by circumstance or made on surmises and conjectures.

Therefore, after going through the various details and documents placed before us, we find that assessee has successfully discharged primary onus casted upon it to explain the source of alleged share capital and share premium. Ld. AO did not find any fault or any shortcoming in the compliances made by the appellant company. It is also an evident fact that the only basis for making the alleged addition by ld. AO was non- appearance of the Directors of the share allotted company but as claimed by ld. Counsel for the assessee, the time allowed for compliance was too short and the assessee filed all the confirmations in respect of such share subscribers which were not doubted by ld. AO. Facts are brought to our notice out of the eight shareholders five have been assessed for the same assessment year u/s 143(3) of the Act and complete details of their financials and bank transactions have been examined by ld. AO in the scrutiny proceedings. This is also an admitted fact that each of the shareholders were duly served notice u/s 133(6) of the Act which is sufficient to prove the identity of such shareholders. As far as the genuineness of the transaction is concerned, the same have taken place through banking channel which is traceable from the origin to the destination of such payments and further confirmed from the documents furnished before us. All these transactions are duly recorded in the respective balance sheets of the shareholder companies. Creditworthiness of the transaction is also proved from the fact that all the shareholder companies were having more than sufficient share capital and reserve and 20 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Inter Securities Pvt. Ltd. surplus fund for giving share application money. Even otherwise ld. AO has not made the addition for charging of higher share premium and has made the addition of unexplained cash credit but still charging of share premium is a commercial decision and the same can be challenged only with sufficient documentary evidence. It thus brings to a conclusion that since the assessee filed complete details of identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction before ld. AO, the onus shifted to ld. AO to disprove the material placed before him and without doing so the additions made by ld. AO are based on conjectures and surmises and the impugned additions cannot be justified and therefore, the impugned action of ld. AO cannot be held to be justified.

Our view is further supported by following judicial pronouncements: “i) CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd. 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bombay) wherein it was held by High Court that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus it would be effective only from the Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the subject Assessment Year. In fact, before the Tribunal, it was not even the case of the Revenue that Section 68 of the Act as in force during the subject years has to be read/understood as though the proviso added subsequently effective only from 1st April, 2013 was its normal meaning. The Parliament did not introduce to proviso to Section 68 of the Act with retrospective effect nor does the proviso so introduced states that it was introduced "for removal of doubts" or that it is "declaratory". Therefore it is not open to give it retrospective effect, by proceeding on the basis that the addition of the proviso to Section 68 of the Act is immaterial and does not change the interpretation of Section 68 of the Act both before and after the adding of the proviso. 47 wherein Madhya Pradesh High Court held that “The question raised by the revenue in regard to issuing the share at a premium is purely a question of fact. It is a prerogative of the Board of Directors of a company to decide the premium amount and it is the wi om of shareholder whether they want to subscribe to shares at such a premium or not and moreover the section 68 does not envisages any law on share premium it only requirement is to identity of the investors, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the share applicants which same has been discharged by the respondent authority and the HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE Pg. No.--58-- (ITA No.112/2018 & Other connected matters) same has been accepted by the appellate authorities thus, the same cannot be reconsidered in these appeals as it is a pure question of fact.” SLP preferred by revenue

We, therefore, respectfully following the judgments referred herein above by the Hon’ble Courts and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, are of the considered view that since the assessee has placed sufficient documents and materials on record to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and the genuineness of the transaction of receiving share capital and share premium, invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act was not justified in the instant case. We, therefore, reverse the finding of the CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs. Rs.1.40 Cr made u/s 68 of the Act and allow all the grounds raised by the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.”

Our view is further supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Juri ictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Sreeleathers reported in [2022] 448 ITR 332 (Cal) wherein Hon’ble Court held as follows: “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, of 1961, deals with cash credits. It states that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee 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 assessee of that previous year. The crucial words in the provision are “the assessee offers no explanation". This would mean that the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the amount credited in the books maintained by the assessee. No doubt the Act places the burden of proof on the taxpayer. However, this is only the initial burden. In cases where the assessee offers an explanation to the credit by placing evidence regarding the identity of the investor or lender along with their confirmations, the assessee has discharged the initial burden and, therefore, the burden shifts on the Assessing Officer to examine the source of the credit to be justified in referring to section 68 of the Act. After the Assessing Officer puts the assessee on notice and the assessee submits the explanation concerning the cash credit, the Assessing Officer should consider it objectively before he decides to accept or reject it. Where the assessee furnishes full details regarding the creditors, it is up to the Department to pursue the matter further to locate those creditors and examine their creditworthiness. While drawing the inference, it cannot be assumed in the absence of any material that there have been some illegalities in the assessee’s transaction. Held, dismissing the appeal, that the allegations against the assessee were in respect of thirteen transactions. The Assessing Officer issued a show- cause notice only in respect of one of the lenders. The assessee responded to the show-cause notice and submitted the reply. The documents annexed to the reply were classified under three categories namely: to establish the identity of the lender, to prove the genuineness of the transactions and to establish the creditworthiness of the lender. The Assessing Officer had brushed aside these documents and in a very casual manner had stated that merely filing the permanent account number details, and balance sheet did not absolve the assessee from his responsibility of proving the nature of the transaction. There was no discussion by the Assessing Officer on the correctness of the stand taken by the assessee. Thus, going by the records placed by the assessee, it could be safely held that the assessee had discharged his initial burden and the burden shifted onto the Assessing Officer to enquire further into the matter which he failed to do. In more than one place the Assessing Officer used the expression "money laundering". Such usage was uncalled for as the allegation of money laundering is a very serious allegation and the effect of a case of money

We, therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above case laws and consistent with the view taken in the above referred decision of this Tribunal and also observing the fact that since the assessee has successfully proved the three necessary ingredients i.e., identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transactions as provided u/s 68 of the Act, are of the view that no interference is called for in the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act and the same is upheld.

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.”

Considering the ratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Narsingh Ispat Limited (supra), we are satisfied that the same is squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case as before us, assessee has filed complete documentary evidence to explain the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the share transactions. We thus set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and delete the impugned addition of Rs.3,59,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act and allow the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 16th October, 2023 at Kolkata. (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated 16/10/2023 *SC SrPs Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Inter Securities Pvt. Ltd.

""यथ" / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, 6. गाड" फाई/ Guard file.