DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM :

These two appeals by the revenue and cross objections by the assessee are

directed against two separate orders of the ld. CIT (A)-2, Udaipur both dated

03.08.2018 for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. First, we

take the appeals of the revenue wherein the revenue has raised common grounds

2 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

for both the assessment years. The grounds raised by the revenue for the

assessment year 2010-11 are as under :-

“ 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act on account of unexplained share application money allegedly obtained by the assessee from M/s. Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Teac Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

3 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

The appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.”

Ground Nos. 1 to 6 relate to deletion of additions on account of

unexplained share capital and premium received by the assessee.

and was subjected to search and seizure operation under section 132 of the I.T. Act carried out at the business premises of the assessee from 2nd July to 4th July, 2015.

Consequently, the AO issued a notice under section 153A of the IT Act and in

compliance to the same, the assessee filed return of income for these assessment

years on 10.09.2016 and 30.09.2016 respectively. The assessee received share

application, share capital and share premium from share applicant companies,

namely, M/s. Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Teac Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

during the year relevant to assessment year 2010-11 and M/s. ISIS Mercantile Pvt.

Ltd. during the year relevant to assessment year 2011-12. The AO made the

addition under section 68 by treating the share capital and share premium received

from these companies as unexplained cash credit on the basis of the report of the

4 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

Investigation Wing Kolkata. The AO treated these companies as Shell company and

held that these companies are controlled by Shri Amit Kedia, & Shri Alok Harlalka

who were found to be bogus entry providers by the Investigation Wing Kolkata. On

appeal, the ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition made by the AO by considering the

fact that the AO has made the disallowance merely on the basis of information

received from Investigation Wing Kolkata and without any material, even the

statement of so called bogus entry provider. The ld. CIT (A) has specifically noted

that the AO was not having the statement of the alleged entry provider in his

possession and, therefore, when the assessee produced all the relevant

documentary evidence in support of the claim, the addition made by the AO was not

sustainable.

information from Investigation Directorate, Kolkata regarding involvement of the

assessee group in obtaining entries of bogus share capital and share premium etc.

detected in the investigation carried out by the DIT Kolkata. Such information was

received even prior to initiation of proceedings under section 153A and also during

the pendency of proceedings under section 153A. Once the AO has confronted the

assessee with the report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata which state that Shri Amit

Kedia and Shri Alok Harlalka have admitted to have provided accommodation entries

of bogus share capital and share premium etc. to the various parties through their

companies and concerns and assessee has shown the share capital and share

premium from those concerns, then onus was shifted on the assessee to establish

5 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

the genuineness of the transactions of share capital and premium. During the

course of assessment proceedings, the AO again conducted enquiries through

Investigation Wing Kolkata regarding the genuineness of the transaction and the

assessee was duly confronted with the results of all these enquiries and information

shared by the Investigation Wing Kolkata. In these circumstances and in the

interest of natural justice, the assessee was required to produce the alleged share

applicants for examination so that genuineness of cash credit could be verified by

the AO. Despite providing several opportunities, the assessee miserably failed to

produce any creditor. The assessee never expressed its inability to produce the

alleged investors nor the assessee requested the AO to issue summon to the alleged

share applicants for verification of the genuineness of the cash credit in the form of

share capital and premium. It is evident that the assessee never intended to

produce the alleged share applicants. The ld. D/R has further submitted that the

present case is not one where assessee obtained small amount or insignificant share

capital so that the assessee could take the plea that it is not in a position to ensure

presence of alleged investors. The size of the transactions which are tainted share

capital and premium constitute the major portion of entire capital of the assessee

and other group companies. Thus the assessee has failed to establish the identity,

creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. The addition is

not made merely on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata but the AO

conducted enquiry through Investigation Wing and statements of entry operators

were also recorded, therefore, overwhelming evidences in the possession of the AO

indicate bogus nature of transaction of share capital and premium which has been

extensively discussed in the assessment order. During the course of assessment

6 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

proceedings, the assessee was provided a number of opportunities for producing the

alleged investors for verification and failure of the assessee in producing the

investors in the light of the evidences was enough to invoke the provisions of section

68 of the IT Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd., 226

Taxman 190 (Mag.) and submitted that the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 230 Taxman 268 (SC). Thus it is evident

that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus to rebut the evidence unearthed by

the Investigation Wing Kolkata which shows that the transactions of share capital

and share premium are nothing but bogus accommodation entries wherein the

assessee’s own undisclosed income has been routed in the garb of share capital and

premium etc. As regards cross examination of the witnesses, since the witnesses

belong to Kolkata and statements were also recorded at Kolkata by the Investigation

Wing, therefore, it was not possible for the AO to issue summon to the witnesses for

cross examination at the office of the AO at Kota. The ld. CIT D/R has relied upon

the order of the AO.

assessee received share capital and share premium from M/s. Sangam Distributors

Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Teac Consultants Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer issued show

cause notice to the assessee calling upon to file the supporting evidence. The

assessee filed detailed reply of the show cause notice which has been reproduced by

the Assessing Officer at pages 20 to 33 of the assessment order. The learned A/R

has pointed out that the assessments of i.e. M/s. Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and

7 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

M/s. Teac Consultants Pvt. Ltd. were completed under section 143(3) by their

Assessing Officer and has accepted these companies as genuine companies. Further,

the ld. A/R has submitted that the assessee has filed ample documents such as copy

of their returns, bank statements, confirmation, affidavits, copy assessment order

and copy of ROC master data which shows that the companies are under the

category “Active/Amalgamated”. Further, these companies have raised substantial

share capital which was also accepted by their Assessing Officer. The ld. A/R

submitted that by filing these documents the assessee has discharged its burden

cast under section 68 of the Act by providing identity, creditworthiness and

genuineness of the transactions. All the shareholders have complied with the

notices/summons issued by the Assessing Officer/Department and also replied to the

queries raised by the department. Therefore, the existence of all the companies was

established when these companies have duly responded to the notices issued by the

department. The assessee produced all relevant documentary evidences in support

of the transactions which remained uncontroverted by the Assessing Officer during

the assessment or appellate proceedings. Therefore, the veracity of documentary

evidence forming part of the assessment record is not doubted. The Assessing

Officer has relied upon statement recorded by the Investigation Wing Kolkata behind

the back of the assessee and much before the date of search. The learned A/R has

submitted that the Assessing Officer was not having statements of the alleged entry

providers. Further the alleged entry providers who have nowhere stated that cash

was given by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the

assessee produced the various documents of share applicants, namely, M/s. Sangam

Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Teac Consultants Pvt. Ltd. All the share capital and

8 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

share premium etc. were received through bank and verifiable from bank statement

of the assessee as well as bank statements of the share applicants. The onus under

section 68 of the Act is to prove the identity, capacity and genuineness of the

transaction which has been discharged by the assessee by producing the

documentary evidence as well as the notices issued by the AO were duly responded

by the share applicants. The ld. A/R has submitted that the share applicant

companies were assessed to tax and there were assessment orders under section

143(3) for the assessment years 2005-06, 06-07, 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 &

2014-15. He has referred to the copies of the assessment orders in case of M/s.

Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Teac Consultants Pvt. Ltd. for all these

assessment years at pages 450 to 469 and 529 to 540 of the paper book

respectively. Therefore, once the share applicants are subjected to scrutiny

assessment for all these years, then the AO cannot treat this company as only paper

company and transactions of loan as bogus transactions. These transactions were

accepted by the AO in the assessments framed under section 143(3) in the hand of

the share applicants. Further, the assessee filed ROC master data showing the

share applicant companies under the category “Active/Amalgamated”. Apart from

these evidences, the assessee also filed confirmation from the share applicants, their

ITR, Bank statement, Balance Sheets which proved the identity, creditworthiness

and genuineness of the transaction. In support of his contention, he has relied upon

the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Aravali Trading Co. vs.

ITO, 8 DTR 199 (Raj.) and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that once

the existence of share applicants is proved and such person owns the credit, the

assessee’s onus stand discharged and the assessee is not required to prove the

9 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

source from which the share applicants could have acquired the money deposited

with him. Even otherwise, when the share applicants were subjected to scrutiny

assessment under section 143(3) wherein the transactions of share capital and

premium receipts were accepted by the AO then the creditworthiness of the share

applicants was also accepted. The ld. A/R has also referred to the availability of the

funds with share applicants being share capital and premium receipts which are

much more than the share application money given to the assessee. The AO has

not found any discrepancy in the accounts of the share applicants and particularly

the bank statement of these companies. Hence treating the transaction as bogus

and in the nature of mere entry provided against the cash without any material is

not sustainable in law. The share applicants have given the confirmation of the

share capital and premium amount and, therefore, admitted the share capital and

premium given to the assessee. Therefore, the finding of the AO treating the

share capital and premium as an accommodation entry is without any basis, material

evidence but the same is based purely on surmises, conjectures and irrelevant

material. No positive material was brought on record by the AO to show the share

applicant company is a shell company whereas the assessee has produced all the

relevant documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of

the transaction as well as share applicant.

is the statement of Shri Anand Sharma and others whereas the assessee was not

given the opportunity of cross examination despite repeated requests and demands.

The AO has violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the copies of

10 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

material used against the assessee at the assessment stage and further not

providing the opportunity of cross examination of the witness during the assessment

stage as well as appellate stage. Though the ld. CIT (A) called for a remand report

and asked the AO to provide opportunity of cross examination to the assessee,

however, after the remand proceedings the AO did not afford an opportunity of

cross examination rather the AO has asked the assessee to produce the witness

instead of allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness. In support of his

contention, the ld. A/R has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2016) 15

SCC 785 (SC). He has also relied on the decision Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the

case of CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) and submitted that the Hon’ble

High Court has held that once there is a violation of principles of natural justice

inasmuch as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor was permitted to

cross examine a person on whose statement the AO relied upon, it would amount to

deficiency and denial of natural justice. The ld. A/R has then referred to the

decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT, 387 ITR

561 (Bombay). Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that once the assessee has already

discharged its primary onus to prove the share capital and premium etc. by

furnishing relevant documents, substantiated identity, creditworthiness and

genuineness of the transaction, then the burden is shifted on the AO to disprove the

documents produced by the assessee in support of the claim. The AO has relied

upon the statement of Shri Anand Sharma and others and no material was brought

on record to controvert the documentary evidence filed by the assessee. Thus the

ld. A/R has stated that the addition made by the AO is not justified. So far as the

11 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is concerned, the ld. A/R submitted that

report dated 09.03.2017 and 30.03.2016 do not pertain to assessee as nothing has

been stated in the report about the assessee. So far report dated 24.03.2017 is

concerned, wherein it has been stated that there was cash deposit in the account of

M/s. Ajay Traders and M/s. Ajay Traders has transferred the fund to M/s. Sangam

Distributors Pvt. Ltd. In this regard, the ld. A/R submitted that since there was no

cash deposit in the account of M/s. Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd., addition cannot be

made in the hands of the assessee as the assessee is not liable to explain source of

source. So far as the report dated 28.11.2017 and 06.12.2017 are concerned, the

ld. A/R submitted that the assessee was not given any material or copy of statement

to show that these companies are operated as bogus entry provider. Therefore,

without providing opportunity of confrontation, the addition cannot be made in the

hands of the assessee by alleging that the assessee has introduced its undisclosed

income under the garb of share capital and share premium. The ld. A/R supported

on the order of the ld. CIT (A).

record. For the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee received share capital with

premium from two companies details of which are as under :-

(1) M/s. Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 90,00,000/-

(2) M/s. Teac Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 15,00,000/-

There is no dispute that during the course of search and seizure no incriminating

material was either found or seized disclosing any undisclosed income or indicating

any bogus transaction of receipt of share capital and premium by the assessee from

these two companies. Further, the AO has also not referred or relied upon any

12 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

seized document while making the addition of the amount of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- on

account of share capital and premium received from these two companies under

section 68 of the IT Act. The sole basis of the addition made by the AO is the

information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata which is also in turn is

nothing but the narration of the statements of various persons allegedly operators of

bogus entry provider. The AO has referred to the statement of Shri Anand Sharma

and other three persons as mentioned in the report of the Investigation Wing for

treating the share capital and premium received from these two companies as

undisclosed cash credit being the assessee’s own unaccounted and undisclosed

income routed in the shape of share capital and premium. It is also not disputed

that the AO was not even having the alleged statement of Shri Amit Kedia and Shri

Alok Harlalka but only a reference was made in the report of the Investigation Wing.

Therefore, except the report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata, the AO was not

having any other material in his possession to support his decision of treating the

share capital and premium received from these two companies as bogus transaction

and addition under section 68 of the Act. On the contrary, the assessee has

produced the following documentary evidence in support of the claim :-

M/s Teac Consultants Pvt. Ltd

S. No. Particulars Paper Book Page No. 426-427 1 Copy of Ack. of ITR of AY 2010-11 along with computation sheet 428-433 2 Copy of Balance sheet of AY 2010-11 along with enclosures 434 3 Copy of relevant page of bank statement showing the entry of payment made to assessee.

13 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota. 435-436 4 Confirmation of account showing the transaction with assessee company along with ledgers from the books of share applicants 437 5 Copy of share allotment advice 438 6 Copy of share application form of equity share 439-442 7 Copy of affidavit of Mr Jitendra Sharma director of company. 443-449 8 Copy of balance sheet of company of 31.03.2010, 31.03.2011, 31.03.2012, 31.03.2013, 31.03.2014, 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016. 450-469 9 Copy of assessment order passed in the case of above named company for AY 2005-06, AY 2006- 07, AY 2012-13 and 2014-15. 470-471 10 Copy of ROC master data. 472 11 Copy of PAN card. 473 12 Certificate of Incorporation. 474 13 Copy of Certificate of NBFC Registration. 475-478 14 Copy of Summon no. 1433 dated 13.10.2017 and reminder summon no.-1592 dated 31.10.2017 issued by DDIT (Investigation), Unit-1(3), Kolkata u/s 131 of Income Tax Act, 1961 to M/s Teac Consultants Private Limited. 479-481 15 Copy of reply in response to summon issued to the company. 482-485 16 Copy of letter for confirmation of source of funds used for applying the shares along with supporting documents

M/s Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd.

S. No. Particulars Paper Book Page No. 486-487 1 Copy of Ack. of ITR of AY 2010-11 along with computation sheet 488-489 2 Copy of Balance sheet of AY 2010-11 along with enclosures 490 3 Copy of relevant page of bank statement showing the entry of payment made to assessee. 491 4 Confirmation of account showing the transaction with Assessee Company. 492-493 5 Copy of share application form of equity share

14 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota. 494-497 6 Copy of affidavit of Mrs Neelam Gautam director of M/s Birla Arts Pvt Ltd. On behalf of amalgamated company M/s Sangam Distributors Pvt Ltd. 498-524 7 Copy of order dated 19.07.2014 passed by Calcutta High Court regarding amalgamation of other companies in this company 525-528 8 Copy of balance sheet of company of 31.03.2010, 31.03.2011, 31.03.2012, and 31.03.2013. 529-540 9 Copy of assessment order passed in the case of above named company for AY 2006-07, AY 2007- 08 and 2013-14. 541-542 10 Copy of ROC master data.

543 11 Copy of PAN card.

544 12 Certificate of Incorporation.

Thus it is manifest from the details of the documentary evidence produced by the

assessee that the assessee established its claim of genuineness of the transaction as

well as creditworthiness of these share applicants by showing the transactions in the

books of accounts and financial statements of the share applicants, the availability of

the funds to establish the capacity of the share applicants to subscribe to the share

capital of the assessee with premium. Further, the income tax returns of the share

applicants were also filed which show that all the transactions were disclosed in the

return of income. Apart from the capacity of the share applicants, the assessee has

also produced the bank statements of the share applicants to show that the

payment of the money was made through banking channel and the AO has not

pointed out any discrepancy either in the bank account statements of the share

applicants or in the financial statements to show that there was any corresponding

deposits of money prior to the payment to the assessee which could indicate a

slightest scope of assessee’s own money routed through share applicants.

Therefore, in the absence of any such finding or any such discrepancy in the bank

15 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

account statements and financial statements, the AO has not produced any material

or record to contradict the documentary evidence filed by the assessee in support of

the claim. Further, there is a decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of M/s.

Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd. approving the amalgamation of the company. The

assessee also produced the confirmation and affidavits of the Directors of the share

applicant companies apart from the financial statements to show the sufficiency of

fund with the share applicants and regular business activities and flow of funds.

Further, the assessee also produced the ROC Master Data of share applicants to

show that the status of these companies as per ROC record is

“Active/Amalgamated”. The share applicant companies are also regularly

assessed to tax and subject to scrutiny assessment. The assessee produced the

assessment orders passed under section 143(3) in respect of the share applicant

companies, details of which are as under :-

Assessment u/s 143(3) :

Name of Company Assessment Income Assessment year Assessed Order u/s 143(3) at PB pg M/s Teac 2005-06 13,980 451-453 Consultants Pvt. Ltd M/s Teac 2006-07 45,395 454-455 Consultants Pvt. Ltd M/s Teac 2012-13 49,91,290 459-462 Consultants Pvt. Ltd M/s Teac 2014-15 10,14,150 466/ Consultants Pvt. Ltd M/s Sangam 2006-07 Nil 530-531 Distributors Pvt.Ltd M/s Sangam 2007-08 9,600 534-535 Distributors Pvt.Ltd M/s Sangam 2013-14 6,79,400 538

16 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

Distributors Pvt.Ltd M/s ISIS Mercantile 2006-07 6,936/- 500-501 Pvt. Ltd. M/s ISIS Mercantile 2013-14 21,81,459/- 502-505 Pvt. Ltd M/s ISIS Mercantile 2014-15 Nil 509-510 Pvt. Ltd (Amalgamated with M/s Magnate Capital Market Pvt. Ltd.)

Thus it is clear that both the share applicant companies are regularly assessed and

assessment orders under section 143(3) were passed wherein the transactions of

investment made in the shares of the assessee were not disturbed by the AO. Hence

all these documentary evidences as well as the admitted facts clearly established

that the assessee has discharged its onus of proving the identity and

creditworthiness of the share applicants as well as genuineness of the transactions.

The AO has not brought on record any evidence to contradict the documentary

evidence filed by the assessee. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has deleted the addition in

para 5 to 5.13 as under :-

“5. On being perusal of reports dated 28.11.2017 and 06.12.2017 received from Investigation Directorate, Kolkata it reveals no adverse facts, details and evidences are not found in the reports in respect of Share application money and share premium received from M/s Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Teac Consultants Pvt. Ltd. as mentioned in para 4.4.7 above my findings are as follows:-

5.1 As discussed in para 4.4.7 above, in respect of the investors namely M/s Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Teac Consultants

17 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota. Private Limited adverse findings along with eloquent evidences in the form of statement on oath of relevant entry operators are not visible in the reports dated 28.11.2017 and 06.12.2017 from Investigation Directorate, Kolkata and therefore it could not be treated as shell company.

5.2 As far as the lender companies namely, M/s Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd and M/s Teac Consultants Private Limited is concerned, it is evident from the documents placed on record that Notice was issued by DDIT, Kolkata u/s 131 to these companies which was duly complied with and relevant documents were filed. There is no fact on record that the notices remained unserved or these companies were not found existent on the given addresses. Furthermore, Affidavit of the directors were also submitted wherein the Directors confirmed investment in shares of the Appellant and source of providing the said. Also, it is evident from the assessment Order that no statement/evidence has been relied upon or provided by the AO for substantiating that these companies are controlled by the so-called Entry Operators.

5.3 For this investor namely, M/s Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Teac Consultants Private Limited, the Appellant in discharge of its onus u/s 68 of the Act has filed confirmation of accounts as well as bank statement reflecting the transactions with other substantiating documents along with assessment orders in case of investor companies, which are available at Page no. 292 to 389 of PB. From these documentary evidences placed on record, identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions is established. There is no gain saying that the onus squarely lies on the appellant to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the cash credits. In the case of Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244 (Pat), the Hon'ble Patna High Court has held "if the loans are given by an account paying cheque, it amounts to

18 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota. identification of the parties and discharge of burden by the borrower." In view of the above, it is clear that Appellant discharged its burden u/s 68 of the Act. Even otherwise, there is no adverse finding of any investigation conducted by the department in relation to these companies. Therefore, in the absence of any independent inquiry and any adverse findings to rebut the evidences filed by the Appellant, I find that the addition in respect of Share application and Share premium from M/s Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Teac Consultants Private Limited amounting to Rs. 1,05,00,000/- is unjustified; firstly, on the ground that no inquiries were made to rebut the evidences filed by the Appellant and secondly, on the ground that Appellant duly discharged its burden casted upon u/s 68 of the Act to explain nature and source of the transactions by proving the identity, creditworthiness of creditor and genuineness of the transaction. In particular, none of the material or statements have been provided in the Assessment Order wherein names of the said companies are mentioned. Notably, the transactions with the company are duly verifiable from confirmation of accounts placed at Page no. 296 and 351 of PB with supporting bank statements placed at Page no. 295 and 352 of PB and have been carried out through banking channels only and thus, appellant has duly proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions.

5.4 Furthermore, from the perusal of documentary evidences submitted by the Appellant, it is seen that transactions have been done through banking channels and on the date of making of loans, there is balance available in the accounts of the borrowers, which proves the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. There is no case of any cash deposition in the account of any of the investor at the time of issuing cheques/RTGS in favour of the Assessee. Therefore, in view of the settled judicial precedent in case of CIT V. VARINDER RAWLLEY [2014] 366 ITR 232 (PUNJAB & HARYANA), CIT V.

19 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota. VIJAY KUMAR JAIN [2014] 221 TAXMAN 180, CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 271, Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244 (Pat) and others as referred by the Appellant, I am of the considered view that Appellant duly discharged its burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. It is further seen that M/s Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd and M/s Teac Consultants Private Limited duly replied to the notices issued by DCIT/DDIT(Inv.), Kolkata in respect of commission, these facts remain uncontroverted by the AO.

5.5 The AO during assessment proceedings took negative inference from the statement of Shri Rajendra Agarwal recorded during search u/s 132(4) wherein he made disclosure in respect of Long Term Capital Gain in his individual hands. I have gone through the statement of Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his disclosure made in his statement, Notably, the disclosure made was in his personal capacity only and with respect to LTCG only and not in respect of any other transactions be it be receipt of unsecured loans. Further, Rajendra Agarwal and appellant are separate legal entity. Therefore, I find that in the absence of any nexus of the Statement of Shri Rajendra Agarwal with the appellant or its total income, this basis of addition adopted by the AO is farfetched & cannot be concurred.

5.6 It is further seen that AO has not brought any specific defect / discrepancies in the direct evidence brought on record by the Appellant. The AO has observed that on the date of debit in the account statement of investor, there is corresponding credit entry of equal amount, however, this observation of the AO is itself not sufficient to prove beyond doubt that Appellant routed its unaccounted income by these companies rather it proves the source in the hands of the Appellant. It is usual business practice, while making investment, funds are required to be arranged by the investor, therefore reflection of such entries in bank

20 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota. statement doesn’t lead to draw any adverse inference against the Appellant. Needless to say that Appellant is not required to prove source of the source u/s 68 of the Act in view of the settled judicial precedents.

5.7 In my considered view, mere not believing an explanation cannot lead to a conclusion that the invested amount is the income of the assessee from some undisclosed sources while in the present case, no evidences of any generation of undisclosed income or their utilization in the form of share application and share premium has been found and brought on record.

5.8 Similarly, I find that various observations of the AO on balance sheet / ITR of the lender companies are misconstrued, misconceived and are factually incorrect. I further find that the various other allegations / observations of the AO are misconceived and premature only and in view the appellant’s submission made in para 10 as reproduced in Para No. 4.2 of this order, the same does not lead any where to draw any adverse inference against the Appellant. Further, the various case laws relied upon by the AO are distinguishable from the facts of the present case as categorically countered by the Appellant in his written submissions as reproduced in Para No. 4.2 above.

5.9 It is settled judicial precedents that under the income tax law primary burden u/s 68 of the Act is on the Appellant and once this burden is discharged u/s 68 of the Act, no addition u/s 68 of the Act is justifiable in the hands of the Assessee in view of the judgments in case of Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax (2006) 155 TAXMAN 289 (RAJ.), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR -II V. MORANI AUTOMOTIVES (P.) LTD. [2014] 264 CTR 86 (RAJASTHAN-HC), CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986) 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax

21 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota. v/s Mark Hospitals (P.) Ltd. [2015] 373 ITR 115 (Madras)(MAG.), Commissioner of Income-tax, Ajmer v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Rajasthan), CIT v/s. Creative World Telefilms Ltd (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom), Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Patel Ramniklal Hirji [2014] 222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd. [2016] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi) referred above which have been also been followed recently by Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Softline Creations (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 744/Del/2012 vide its order dated 10.02.2016. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court as well as High Court has held that once the identity of creditor is established, the department is free to reopen the assessment of creditor and no addition can be made in the hand of borrower as rightly held in case of CIT v/s Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rock Fort Metal & Minerals Ltd. [2011] 198 TAXMAN 497 (Delhi), Divine Leasing & Finance Limited [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1986) 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F (SC) and others on this question of law.

5.10 Further, power to call for information/production of evidences or enforcing attendance under the law is given to the income tax authorities only and therefore, in view of the judgment CIT v/s Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 271, the Appellant cannot be fastened upon the burden to produce the investors before the assessing authorities though in the instance case, appellant has cooperated in assessment by showing his willingness to produce the directors of investor companies and some directors/officer were also produced before the AO. Thus, in view of the judicial precedents referred above, under the facts and circumstances of the present case it is untenable to make any addition for alleged non- appearance by the concerned person before the authorities though they complied with the notices/summon issued to them.

22 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

5.11 In the present case in hand, I find that AO asked Assessee to produce investor companies without verifying the facts of investing money from respective jurisdiction assessing officer and without verifying their returns of income and balance sheet wherein these transactions are reported, accordingly the AO has not followed the principles laid down under section 68 of the Act. The Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava [2012] 21 taxmann.com 159 (Guj.) has held that:-

Once the assessee has established that he has taken money by way of account payee cheques from the lenders who are all income tax assessees whose PAN have been disclosed, the initial burden under section 68 was discharged. It further appears that the assessee had also produced confirmation letters given by those lenders. [Para 15]

Once the Assessing Officer gets hold of the PAN of the lenders, it was his duty to ascertain from the Assessing Officer of those lenders, whether in their respective returns they had shown existence of such amount of money and had further shown that those amount of money had been lent to the assessee. If before verifying of such fact from the Assessing Officer of the lenders of the assessee, the Assessing Officer decides to examine the lenders and asks the assessee to further prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction, the Assessing Officer does not follow the principle laid down under section 68. [Para 16]

In the instance case before me , the AO has not followed the due procedure of law u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore, requiring the Assessee to produce the directors of the lender company was not legally tenable in view of the judgment of Gujrat High Court (supra).

5.12 It is noted that no clinching evidences has been brought on record that any unaccounted income was routed through Share application and share premium by the Appellant as no evidences as to receipt/payment

23 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

of cash for receipt of share application and share premium were found during search in case of the Appellant. Mere suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of evidence. Thus, in the absence of any incriminating material found during search to rebut the evidences filed by the Appellant, the impugned addition made in respect of Share application & Share premium u/s 68 of the Act is legally untenable and unjustified.

5.13 In view of the above discussion of relevant facts and following the several ratios on the subject from Hon’ble Apex Court, High Courts including jurisdictional High Courts, Tribunals including jurisdictional Tribunals, the impugned addition in respect of Share Application and Share premium received from M/s Sangam Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Teac Consultants Private Limited totalling to Rs. 1,05,00,000/- is not sustainable and hence the same stands deleted. In view of above the ground No. 2, 13 to 18 and 20 of appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above. ”

Accordingly, in view of the above discussion as well as facts and circumstances of

the case the AO has made the addition based on the report of the Investigation

Wing Kolkata whereas the assessee has produced all the relevant documentary

evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the

transactions. Hence in the absence of any discrepancy or otherwise any material or

record to show that the assessee’s own unaccounted/undisclosed income has routed

through the share applicants, the addition made by the AO is not justified.

Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the ld.

CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition.

24 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

share capital and premium of Rs. 90,00,000/- received from M/s. ISIS Mercantile

Pvt. Ltd. The other facts regarding this issue remain identical as for the assessment

year 2010-11. The AO has made the addition based on the report of the

Investigation Wing Kolkata. However, except the said information received from the

Investigation Wing, the AO was not having any other evidence or material to show

that the transaction is a bogus entry provided by the share applicant. The assessee

produced the following documentary evidence in support of the claim :-

M/s ISIS Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. S. No. Particulars PB Page No./ AY 2011-12 1 Copy of Ack. of ITR of AY 2011-12 along with 430-432 computation sheet. 2 Copy of Balance sheet of AY 2011-12 along 433-450 with enclosures. 3 Copy of relevant page of bank statement 451-454 showing the entry of payment made to assessee. 4 Confirmation of account showing the 455-456 transaction with Assessee Company, along with ledger account from the books of share applicants 5 Copy of share allotment advice 457 6 Copy of share application form of equity share 458-468 along with Form 2 7 Copy of affidavit of Mrs Babita Kriplani 469-472 director of company. 8 Copy of order passed by Calcutta High Court 473-495 regarding amalgamation of other companies in this company 9 Copy of balance sheet of company of 496-499 31.03.2010, 31.03.2011, 31.03.2012, and 31.03.2013. 10 Copy of assessment order passed in the case of 500-513 above named company for AY 2006-07, AY 2013-14 and 2014-15.

25 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

11 Copy of ROC master data. 514-515 12 Copy of PAN card. 516 13 Certificate of Incorporation. 517 14 Copy of summon no. 1444 dated 13.10.2017 518-521 and reminder summon No. 1584 dated 31.10.2017 issued by DDIT (Investigation), Unit-1(3), Kolkata u/s 131 of Income Tax Act, 1961 to M/s ISIS Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. 15 Copy of reply in response to such summon 522-524 along with dispatch proof.

Further, the assessee also produced the master data of ROC showing the status of

the said company as “Amalgamated”. The amalgamation was duly approved by

the Hon’ble High Court. The financial status and capacity to invest in the shares of

the assessee was also proved by showing the share capital of the said company

raised in the financial year 2005-06 of Rs. 15.42 crores, in the financial year 2010-11

of Rs. 2.5 crores and in the financial year 2012-13 of Rs. 12.9 crores. The

assessment orders for all these years except assessment year 2011-12 were also

passed under section 143(3) of the IT Act and, therefore, the availability of the

funds as well as the investment made by the said company in the shares of the

assessee were not disturbed by the department while completing the scrutiny

assessment. Hence in view of our finding on this issue for the assessment year

2010-11 and an identical finding of the ld. CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year

under consideration, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of

the ld. CIT (A) for the assessment year 2011-12.

Ground No. 7 of the department’s appeal is regarding deletion of

disallowance made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 14A of

the IT Act.

26 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

disallowance varies.

material on record. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted

that the assessee company has shown opening and closing stock of the investment

in shares at Rs. 15 lac as on 31.03.2011 and Rs. 1,97,53,750/- as on 31.03.2012.

The AO has made a disallowance equivalent to 1% of the average investment on

account of expenditure incurred for earning the exempt income. On appeal, the ld.

CIT (A) has deleted the addition in para 8.4 for the assessment year 2010-11 as

under :-

“8.4 In my considered view, the AO has legally erred in directly applying the provision of section 14A of the Act, without recording any satisfaction as to the correctness of the claim made by the Appellant. In the assessment order, there is no satisfaction recorded by the AO as required by section 14A (1) of the Act before proceeding further to make any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Further, it is seen that AO has mechanically applied the Rule 8D as amended w.e.f. 02.06.2016, which was not even applicable to relevant assessment year. In my considered view, the law cannot be applied mechanically and that too retrospectively. It is seen that AO has not established any nexus of investment with borrowed funds, rather availability of sufficient interest free funds justifies the case of the Appellant that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is unwarranted. Further, it is seen that AO has neither pointed out nor given any specific findings in the assessment order that any exempt income was earned during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, in view of the non-fulfillment of such statutory requirement

27 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

as laid down in various judicial precedents and Circulars as relied upon by the A/R in his submission, in my considered view, the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act of Rs. 1250/- is unwarranted. Accordingly, the same is deleted and grounds No. 3 to 10 of appeals are allowed.”

There is no dispute that the assessee’s own interest free fund was many times more

than the investment made for both the assessment years to the tune of Rs.

15,00,000/- for assessment year 2010-11 and Rs. 1,92,53,750/- for the assessment

year 2011-12. Further, there was no dividend income earned by the assessee

during these assessment years, therefore, in the absence of any exempt income

earned by the assessee during the years under consideration, the disallowance made

by the AO being 1% of the average investment is not sustainable when there is no

specific and identified expenditure or finding by the AO regarding any expenditure

incurred by the assessee for earning the exempt income. Accordingly, in view of the

above facts and circumstances, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of

the ld. CIT (A) qua this issue.

C.O. NOS. 45 & 46/JP/2018 :

grounds for both the assessment years :-

“ 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order passed u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, void-ab-initio, and deserves to be annulled as the assessment for the year under consideration was not abated as on the date of search and CIT (A) erred in holding that the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted in view of SLPs admitted in various cases. The ld. CIT (A)

28 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

further erred in holding that the additions are to be adjudicated on merits as per relevant ground of appeal hence the issue remains for academic discussion only.

Ground no. 1 of the cross objection is regarding sustainability of

the addition made by the AO in the assessment framed under section 153A

without any incriminating material found or seized during the course of

search and seizure action. This ground is common for both the

assessment years.

assessment year 2010-11 on 24.09.2010 and for the assessment year 2011-12 on

06.09.2011. The returns filed by the assessee were not pending as on the date of search on 2nd July, 2015. Therefore, the assessment was completed under section

143(1)(a) for both the assessment years and was not got abated due to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the IT Act on 2nd July, 2015. The assessee

raised this objection before the ld. CIT (A), however, the ld. CIT (Appeals) has not

accepted the contention of the assessee due to the reason that the SLP filed by the

revenue against the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Kabul

Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

29 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

notice under section 153A of the IT Act, the assessee submitted its e-return of income for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 on 10th September, 2016 and 30th September, 2016 respectively declaring total income which was same for the

assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12. The assessee objected to the proposed

addition on the ground that the said statement recorded by the department is

behind the back of the assessee and, therefore, the same cannot be used against

the assessee without giving opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses.

Further it was contended since there is no incriminating material found during the

course of search and seizure action, therefore, the AO is not empowered to make

any addition in the total income of the assessee. It is a settled position of law that

there cannot be a review under the garb of reassessment proceeding under section

153A of the Act and, therefore, the proposed reassessment proceedings are

absolutely in abuse of process of law, illegal and bad in law. The provisions of

section 153A cannot be applied in respect of assessment which has already been

completed unless some incriminating material/information comes into the

possession/knowledge of the AO during the course of search proceedings. Since the

assessments for these four assessment years i.e. 2010-11 and 2011-12 were not

pending as on the date of search and there is no incriminating material found or

seized during the course of search, then the AO is bound to reassess the total

income as it was assessed on the original return of income. Though the AO is

legally bound to assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately

preceding to the year of search, however, the assessments which are pending on

the date of search gets abated and the assessments which were not pending on the

30 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

date of search had attained the finality and, therefore, the addition over and above

the assessed income cannot be made de hors the incriminating material found at the

time of search while completing the assessment under section 153A of the Act. If

there is no incriminating material then the original assessment made can be

reiterated and no further addition is called for otherwise addition can only be made

on the basis of undisclosed income derived from material/documents seized as a

result of search. The completed assessment can be interfered or disturbed by the

AO while making the assessment under section 153A only on the basis of some

incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and requisition of

income disclosing undisclosed income not already disclosed or made known in the

course of original assessment. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating

material found or seized during the course of search and seizure proceedings, the

additions made by the AO during the course of reassessment under section 153A of

the Act are without jurisdiction and liable to be deleted. In support of his contention

the ld. A/R has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Kabul

Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) and submitted that Hon’ble High Court has held that in

case of completed assessment not abated by virtue of search under section 132 of

the Act in the absence of any incriminating material, the same can be reiterated and,

therefore, no addition could have been made to the income already assessed. The

ld. A/R has also relied upon the following decisions :-

31 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held

that the requirement of assessment or reassessment under section 153A has to be

read in the context of section 132 or 132A of the IT Act, in as much as in case

nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then the

question of reassessment of concluded assessment does not arise, which would

require mere reiteration and it is only in the context of abated assessment under

second proviso which is required to be assessed. The underlined purpose of making

assessment of total income under section 153A of the Act is, therefore, to assess

income which was not disclosed or would not have been disclosed. The assessment

or reassessment proceedings which have already been completed and assessment

orders have been passed determining the assessee’s total income and, such orders

are subsisting at the time when search or requisition is made, there is no question of

any abated assessment since no proceedings were pending and, therefore, the

addition to the income that has already been assessed will be made on the basis of

incriminating material. In the absence of any incriminating material, the completed

assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be

made. Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that the AO has made the additions in the

assessment under section 153A whereby the completed assessments have been

32 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

disturbed without even referring to any incriminating material found or seized during

the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the Act. The only basis of

addition is the statement of third party recorded in the search of the third party that

has no connection with the search proceedings of the assessee and, therefore, in the

absence of any incriminating material found or seized during the search of the

assessee, no addition can be made in the assessment framed under section 153A of

the Act.

income of the assessee relate to the unexplained cash credit in the books of account

introduced in the garb of share capital and premium which in fact is the re-routing of

the assessee’s undisclosed income. It is clearly evident from the innumerable

evidences which came to the fore in the numerous investigations, enquiries, search

and survey actions carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Department that the

AO received information from the Investigation Wing Kolkata regarding the

involvement of assessee in obtaining entries of bogus share capital, share premium

etc. detected in the investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing Kolkata. Such

information was received prior to the initiation of proceedings under section 153A

and also during the pendency of proceedings under section 153A. Accordingly,

during the course of assessment proceedings under section 153A, the AO conducted

further enquiry about the genuineness of the transaction of share capital and

premium etc. The assessee was duly confronted with the results of all these

enquiries and information shared by the Investigation Wing. In these circumstances

it cannot be a case of addition made without any incriminating material but the AO

was having sufficient material disclosing the undisclosed and unexplained cash credit

33 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

introduced by the assessee in the garb of share capital and premium. Once the

insurmountable evidences unearthed by the Investigation Wing Kolkata which is the

basis of the additions made by the AO, the assessee was required to discharge its

onus by producing the contrary evidence or by producing alleged creditors for

verification. The ld. CIT D/R has further submitted that the information received

from the Investigation Wing Kolkata is also the incriminating material found during

the search and pertains to the assessee disclosing undisclosed income. Therefore, it

is not a case of reassessment framed by the AO under section 153A without any

incriminating material. The AO even conducted further investigation during the

course of assessment proceedings through the Investigation Wing Kolkata and,

therefore, the addition is fully based on the evidence in the possession of the AO.

As per the provisions of section 132 read with section 153A of the IT Act, the AO has

to assess or reassess the income of last six years and total income refers to the sum

total of income in respect of which a person is assessable. The total income will

therefore cover not only the income emanating from the declared source or any

material omission before AO but from all sources including undisclosed ones or

based on unplaced material before the AO. The ld. CIT D/R has thus submitted that

the decisions in the case of M/s. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. as well as Kabul

Chawla (supra) were challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has admitted the SLP for examination of the issue. Hence the issue is

still pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has relied upon the

orders of the authorities below.

record. In pursuant to the same search and seizure action under section 132 carried

34 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota. on 2nd July, 2015, an identical issue was considered and decided by us in the case of

group concern, namely, M/s. Kota Dall Mill in ITA Nos. 997 to 1002/JP/2018 and 1119/JP/2018 and others vide order dated 31st December, 2018 as under :-

“6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. Undisputedly, the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 were not pending on the date of search on 2nd July, 2015. Even in some of the assessment years orders under section 143(3) were passed and in other cases the assessment was completed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thus the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 were not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on 2nd July, 2015 and the AO would reassess the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 153A in respect of these four assessment years i.e. 2010-11 to 13-14. The proceedings under section 153A in respect of these four assessment years would be in the nature of reassessment and not in the nature of assessment as in the cases of the remaining two assessment years i.e. 2014-15 and 15-16 those were got abated by virtue of search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act on 2nd July, 2015. It is a settled proposition of law that the assessment or reassessment under section 153A in respect of the assessment years which have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed determining the assessee’s total income, the addition to the income that has already been assessed can be made only on the basis of incriminating material. In the absence of any incriminating material the completed assessment can only be reiterated. The provisions of section 132 read with section 153A of the Act stipulate two types of situations – one where the assessment of any assessment year falling within six assessment years is pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A of the Act. Therefore, the assessment under section 153A in respect of those assessment years which stand abated due to the reason of pending on the date of initiation of search or requisition shall be the original/first assessment. In the second category where the assessment or reassessment has already

35 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

been completed on the date of initiation of search or making of requisition as the case may be, the assessment under section 153A would be in the nature of reassessment. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla while analyzing the provisions of section 153A read with section 132 of the Act has observed in para 37 and 38 as under :-

“37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under:

i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.

Conclusion 38. The present appeals concern AYs, 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07.On the date of the search the said assessments already stood completed. Since no incriminating material was

36 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed.”

Thus the Hon’ble High Court has held that in the absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The Hon’ble High Court has also referred the term used in section 153A as “assess” which is relatable to abated proceedings and the word “reassess” related to completed assessment proceedings. Therefore, the completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of document or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has reiterated its view in case of Principal CIT vs. Kurele Paper Mills (supra) in para 1 to 3 as under :-

“1. The Revenue has filed the appeal against an order dated 14.11.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in 3761/Del/2011 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2002-03. The question was whether the learned CIT (Appeals) had erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 89 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('ACT') on bogus share capital. But, the issue was whether there was any incriminating material whatsoever found during the search to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. 2. The Court finds that the order of the CIT(Appeals) reveals that there is a factual finding that "no incriminating evidence related to share capital issued was found during the course of search as is manifest from the order of the AO." Consequently, it was held that the AO was not justified in invoking Section 68 of the Act for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital. 3. As far as the above facts are concerned, there is nothing shown to the court to persuade and hold that the above factual determination is perverse. Consequently, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the impugned order of the ITAT which requires examination.”

The SLP filed by the revenue against the said decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 7th December, 2015. In a subsequent decision, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia has again analyzed this issue in para 55 to 71 as under :-

37 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

“55. On the legal aspect of invocation of Section 153A in relation to AYs 2000-01 to 2003-04, the central plank of the Revenue's submission is the decision of this Court in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra). Before beginning to examine the said decision, it is necessary to revisit the legal landscape in light of the elaborate arguments advanced by the Revenue. 56. Section 153A of the Act is titled "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is connected to Section 132 which deals with 'search and seizure'. Both these provisions, therefore, have to be read together. Section 153A is indeed an extremely potent power which enables the Revenue to re-open at least six years of assessments earlier to the year of search. It is not to be exercised lightly. It is only if during the course of search under Section 132 incriminating material justifying the re-opening of the assessments for six previous years is found that the invocation of Section 153A qua each of the AYs would be justified. 57. The question whether unearthing of incriminating material relating to any one of the AYs could justify the re-opening of the assessment for all the earlier AYs was considered both in Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and Chetan Das Lachman Das (supra). Incidentally, both these decisions were discussed threadbare in the decision of this Court in Kabul Chawla(supra). As far as Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) was concerned, the Court in paragraph 24 of that decision noted that "we are not concerned with a case where no incriminating material was found during the search conducted under Section 132 of the Act. We therefore express no opinion as to whether Section 153A can be invoked even under such situation". That question was, therefore, left open. As far as Chetan Das Lachman Das (supra) is concerned, in para 11 of the decision it was observed: "11. Section 153A (1) (b) provides for the assessment or reassessment of the total income of the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search took place. To repeat, there is no condition in this Section that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search or other post-search material or Information available with the Assessing Officer which can be related to the evidence found. This, however, does not mean that the assessment under Section 153A can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." 58. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court discussed the decision in Filatex India Ltd. (supra) as well as the above two decisions and observed as under: "31. What distinguishes the decisions both in CIT v. Chetan Das Lachman Das (supra), and Filatex India Ltd. v. CIT-IV (supra) in their application to the present case is that in both the said cases there was some material unearthed during the search, whereas in the present case there admittedly was none. Secondly, it is plain from a careful reading of the said two . decisions that they do not hold that additions can be validly made to income forming the subject matter of completed assessments prior to the search even if no incriminating material whatsoever was unearthed during the search. 32. Recently by its order dated 6th July 2015 in ITA No. 369 of 2015 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd.), this Court declined to frame a question of law in a case where, in the absence of any incriminating material being found during the search under Section 132 of the

38 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

Act, the Revenue sought to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act and make an addition under Section 68 of the Act on bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra) in paras 33 and 34 reads as under: '33. The decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur v. ACIT (supra) involved a case where certain books of accounts and other documents that had not been produced in the course of original assessment were found in the course of search. It was held where undisclosed income or undisclosed property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration while computing the total income under Section 153A of the Act. The Court then explained as under: "22. In the firm opinion of this Court from a plain reading of the provision along with the purpose and purport of the said provision, which is intricately linked with search and requisition under Sections 132 and 132A of the Act, it is apparent that: (a) the assessments or reassessments, which stand abated in terms of II proviso to Section 153A of the Act, the AO acts under his original jurisdiction, for which, assessments have to be made;

(b) regarding other cases, the addition to the income that has already been assessed, the assessment will be made on the basis of incriminating material; and

(c) in absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made."

39 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

pending on the date of initiation of the search or making of requisition and which would also necessarily support the interpretation that for the completed assessments, the same can be tinkered only based on the incriminating material found during the course of search or requisition of documents."' 60. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court also took note of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corpn (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 78/232 Taxman 270/374 ITR 645 (Bom.) which accepted the plea that if no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect of an issue, then no additions in respect of any issue can be made to the assessment under Section 153A and 153C of the Act. The legal position was thereafter summarized in Kabul Chawla (supra) as under: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place.

ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise.

iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the. aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax".

iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material."

v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings.

vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other

40 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

material existing or brought on the record of the AO.

vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment."

41 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

42 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

concerned, it has in IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. (supra) followed the decision of this Court in Kabul Chawla (supra) and held that there had to be incriminating material qua each of the AYs in which additions were sought to be made pursuant to search and seizure operation. The Calcutta High Court in Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. (supra), too, followed the decision of this Court in Kabul Chawla (supra). In Gurinder Singh Bawa(supra), the Bombay High Court held that: "6. . . . . . once an assessment has attained finality for a particular year, i.e., it is not pending then the same cannot be subject to tax in proceedings under section 153A of the Act. This of course would not apply if incriminating materials are gathered in the course of search or during proceedings under section 153A of the Act which are contrary to and/or not disclosed during the regular assessment proceedings." 63. Even this Court has in Mahesh Kumar Gupta (supra) and Ram Avtar Verma (supra) followed the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra). The decision of this Court in Kurele Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. (supra) which was referred to in Kabul Chawla (supra) has been affirmed by the Supreme Court by the dismissal of the Revenue's SLP on 7th December, 2015. The decision in Dayawanti Gupta 64. That brings us to the decision in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra). As rightly pointed out by Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, that there are several distinguishing features in that case which makes its ratio inapplicable to the facts of the present case. In the first place, the Assessees there were engaged in the business of Pan Masala and Gutkha etc. The answers given to questions posed to the Assessee in the course of search and survey proceedings in that case bring out the points of distinction. In the first place, it was stated that the statement recorded was under Section 132(4) and not under Section 133A. It was a statement by the Assessee himself. In response to question no. 7 whether all the purchases made by the family firms, were entered in the regular books of account, the answer was: "We and our family firms namely M/s. Assam Supari Traders and M/s. Balaji Perfumes generally try to record the transactions made in respect of purchase, manufacturing and sales in our regular books of accounts but it is also fact that some time due to some factors like inability of accountant, our busy schedule and some family problems, various purchases and sales of Supari, Gutka and other items dealt by our firms is not entered and shown in the regular books of accounts maintained by our firms." 65. Therefore, there was a clear admission by the Assessees in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra) there that they were not maintaining regular books of accounts and the transactions were not recorded therein. 66. Further, in answer to Question No. 11, the Assessee in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra) was confronted with certain documents seized during the search. The answer was categorical and reads thus: "Ans:- I hereby admit that these papers also contend details of various transactions include purchase/sales/manufacturing trading of Gutkha, Supari made in cash outside Books of accounts and these are actually unaccounted transactions made by our two firms namely M/s. Asom Trading and M/s. Balaji Perfumes." 67. By contrast, there is no such statement in the present case which can be said to constitute an admission by the Assessee of a failure to record any transaction in the accounts of the Assessee for the AYs in question. On the contrary, the Assessee herein stated that, he is regularly maintaining the books of accounts. The disclosure made in the sum of Rs. 1.10 crores was only for the year of search and not for the earlier years. As already noticed, the

43 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

books of accounts maintained by the Assessee in the present case have been accepted by the AO. In response to question No. 16 posed to Mr. Pawan Gadia, he stated that there was no possibility of manipulation of the accounts. In Smt. Dayawanti Gupta(supra), by contrast, there was a chart prepared confirming that there had been a year-wise non-recording of transactions. In Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra), on the basis of material recovered during search, the additions which were made for all the years whereas additions in the present case were made by the AO only for AY 2004-05 and not any of the other years. Even the additions made for AYs 2004-05 were subsequently deleted by the CIT (A), which order was affirmed by the ITAT. Even the Revenue has challenged only two of such deletions in ITA No. 306/2017. 68. In para 23 of the decision in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra), it was observed as under: "23. This court is of opinion that the ITAT's findings do not reveal any fundamental error, calling for correction. The inferences drawn in respect of undeclared income were premised on the materials found as well as the statements recorded by the assessees. These additions therefore were not baseless. Given that the assessing authorities in such cases have to draw inferences, because of the nature of the materials - since they could be scanty (as one habitually concealing income or indulging in clandestine operations can hardly be expected to maintain meticulous books or records for long and in all probability be anxious to do away with such evidence at the shortest possibility) the element of guess work is to have some reasonable nexus with the statements recorded and documents seized. In tills case, the differences of opinion between the CIT (A) on the one hand and the AO and ITAT on the other cannot be the sole basis for disagreeing with what is essentially a factual surmise that is logical and plausible. These findings do not call for interference. The second question of law is answered again in favour of the revenue and against the assessee." 69. What weighed with the Court in the above decision was the "habitual concealing of income and indulging in clandestine operations" and that a person indulging in such activities "can hardly be accepted to maintain meticulous books or records for long." These factors are absent in the present case. There was no justification at all for the AO to proceed on surmises and estimates without there being any incriminating material qua the AY for which he sought to make additions of franchisee commission. 70. The above distinguishing factors in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra), therefore, do not detract from the settled legal position in Kabul Chawla (supra) which has been followed not only by this Court in its subsequent decisions but also by several other High Courts. 71. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court is of the view that the ITAT was justified in holding that the invocation of Section 153A by the Revenue for the AYs 2000-01 to 2003- 04 was without any legal basis as there was no incriminating material qua each of those AYs.”

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has concurred with the view as taken in case of Kabul Chawla (supra) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Jai Steel India Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra). Even on the issue of addition made by the AO in the proceedings under section 153A in respect of the assessment year which was already completed on the date of search, the Hon’ble High Court has held that in the absence of any material which was subsequently unearthed during

44 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

the search and was not already available to the AO, the additions made by the AO on account of security deposits were rightly deleted by the ld. CIT (A). The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court in case of Principal CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia (supra) are in para 53 as under :-

“53. At this stage, it is also to be noticed that an elaborate argument was made by Mr. Manchanda on the aspect of the security deposits accepted by the Assessee. These were of two kinds - one was of refundable security deposits and the other for non-refundable security deposits. As far as the refundable security deposits were concerned, the AO himself in his remand report accepted them as having been disclosed. This has been noticed by the CIT (A) in para 7.2.1 of his order for AY 2004- 05. As regards non-refundable security deposit, the CIT (A) accepted the AO's findings that treating the sum as 'goodwill written off on deferred basis' was not correct, hence the addition of Rs. 5,09,343 was held to be justified and correct. It was duly accounted for under 'liabilities' and transferred to income in a phased manner. This was not done by manipulating the account books of the Assessee as alleged by the Revenue. This would have been evident had the return been picked up for scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act. This, therefore, was not material which was subsequently unearthed during the search which was not already available to the AO. Consequently, the additions sought to be made by the AO on account of security deposits were rightly deleted by the CIT (A).”

Thus the essential corollary of these decisions is that no addition can be made in the proceedings under section 153A in respect of the assessments which were completed prior to the date of search except based on some incriminating material unearthed during the search which was not already available to the AO. It is pertinent to note that the SLP filed by the revenue against the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Principal CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia was dismissed vide order dated 2nd July, 2018. There are series of decisions on this issue including the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of M/s. Jai Steel India vs. ACIT (supra) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held in para 23 to 30 as under :-

45 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

“23. The reliance placed by the counsel for the appellant on the case of Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) also does not help the case of the assessee. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under:— "19. Under the provisions of Section 153A, as we have already noticed, the Assessing Officer is bound to issue notice to the assessee to furnish returns for each assessment year falling within the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search or requisition was made. Another significant feature of this Section is that the Assessing Officer is empowered to assess or reassess the "total income" of the aforesaid years. This is a significant departure from the earlier block assessment scheme in which the block assessment roped in only the undisclosed income and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved, resulting in multiple assessments. Under Section 153A, however, the Assessing Officer has been given the power to assess or reassess the 'total income' of the six assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. This means that there can be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six assessment years, in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax. 20. A question may arise as to how this is sought to be achieved where an assessment order had already been passed in respect of all or any of those six assessment years, either under Section 143(1)(a) or Section 143(3) of the Act. If such an order is already in existence, having obviously been passed prior to the initiation of the search/requisition, the Assessing Officer is empowered to reopen those proceedings and reassess the total income, taking note to the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. For this purpose, the fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub-section (1) of Section 153A opens. The time-limit within which the notice under Section 148 can be issued, as provided in Section 149 has also been made inapplicable by the non obstante clause. Section 151 which requires sanction to be obtained by the Assessing Officer by issue of notice to reopen the assessment under Section 148 has also been excluded in a case covered by Section 153A. The time-limit prescribed for completion of an assessment or reassessment by Section 153 has also been done away with in a case covered by Section 153A. With all the stops having been pulled out, the Assessing Officer under Section 153A has been entrusted with the duty of bringing to tax the total income of an assessee whose case is covered by Section 153A, by even making reassessments without any fetters, if need be. 21. Now there can be cases where at the time when the search is initiated or requisition is made, the assessment or reassessment proceedings relating to any assessment year falling within the period of the six assessment years mentioned above, may be pending. In such a case, the second proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 153A says that such proceedings "shall abate". The reason is not far to seek. Under Section 153A, there is no room for multiple assessment orders in respect of any of the six assessment years under consideration. That is because the Assessing Officer has to determine not merely the undisclosed income of the assessee, but also the 'total income' of the assessee in whose case a search or requisition has been initiated. Obviously there cannot be several orders for the same assessment year determining the total income of the assessee. In order to ensure this state of

46 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

affairs namely, that in respect of the six assessment years preceding the assessment year relevant to the year in which the search took place there is only one determination of the total income, it has been provided in the second proviso of sub-Section (1) of Section 153A that any proceedings for assessment or reassessment of the assessee which are pending on the date of initiation of the search or making requisition "shall abate". Once those proceedings abate, the decks are cleared, for the Assessing Officer to pass assessment orders for each of those six years determining the total income of the assessee which would include both the income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search or requisition. The position thus emerging is that the search is initiated or requisition is made, they will abate making way for the Assessing Officer to determine the total income of the assessee in which the undisclosed income would also be included, but in case where the assessment or reassessment proceedings have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed determining the assessee's total income and such orders subsisting at the time when the search or the requisition is made, there is no question of any abatement since no proceedings are pending. In this latter situation, the Assessing Officer will reopen the assessments or reassessments already made (without having the need to follow the strict provisions or complying with the strict conditions of Sections 147, 148 and 151) and determine the total income of the assessee. Such determination in the orders passed under Section 153A would be similar to the orders passed in any reassessment, where the total income determined in the original assessment order and the income that escaped assessment are clubbed together and assessed as the total income. In such a case, to reiterate, there is no question of any abatement of the earlier proceedings for the simple reason that no proceedings for assessment or reassessment were pending since they had already culminated in assessment or reassessment orders when the search was initiated or the requisition was made." (Emphasis supplied) 24. The said judgment also in no uncertain terms holds that the reassessment of the total income of the completed assessments have to be made taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search and the income that escaped assessments are required to be clubbed together with the total income determined in the original assessment and assessed as the total income. The observations made in the judgment contrasting the provisions of determination of undisclosed income under Chapter XIVB with determination of total income under Sections 153A to 153C of the Act have to be read in the context of second proviso only, which deals with the pending assessment/reassessment proceedings. The further observations made in the context of de novo assessment proceedings also have to be read in context that irrespective of the fact whether any incriminating material is found during the course of search, the notice and consequential assessment under Section 153A have to be undertaken. 25. The argument of the learned counsel that the AO is also free to disturb income, expenditure or deduction de hors the incriminating material, while making assessment under Section 153A of the Act is also not borne out from the scheme of the said provision which as noticed above is essentially in context of search and/or requisition. The provisions of Sections 153A to 153C cannot be interpreted to be a further innings for the AO and/or assessee beyond provisions of Sections 139 (return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act.

47 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

48 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

In the case in hand, the transactions of unsecured loans as well as introduction of capital by the partners were duly recorded in the books of account and available with the AO. Further, during the course of search under section 132 of the Act on 2nd July 2015 no material much less incriminating material was either found or seized to disclose any undisclosed income on account of unsecured loans or partners’ capital received by the assessee firm. The AO has proposed to make the addition on account of unsecured loans and partners’ capital under section 68 being unexplained cash credit solely on the basis of the information received from Investigation Wing Kolkata. It is pertinent to note that the said information was available with the AO prior to the search conducted under section 132 of the Act in case of the assessee on 2nd July, 2015. Therefore, even the sole basis of assessments framed under section 153A of the Act is the information received from Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of one Shri Anand Sharma, who is stated to be an entry operator and managed various concerns/companies including M/s.Royal Crystal Dealers, one of the loan creditors of the assessee. Except the said statement and report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata, the AO has neither referred to or was having in possession of any material to indicate that the unsecured loans shown in the books of accounts as well as partners’ capital received by the assessee are nothing but assessee’s own unaccounted and undisclosed income routed back in the garb of unsecured loans and partners’ capital. There is no dispute that these transactions of unsecured loans and partners’ capital contribution are duly recorded in the books of accounts and disclosed in the return of income which were already completed as the assessments for these four assessment years were not pending on the date of search, therefore, it is manifest from the record that during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the Act in the case of the assessee no material much less the incriminating material was unearthed or any undisclosed income which was not disclosed in the books of accounts was detected or found. The only incriminating material which was referred by the AO is pages 21 to 26 of Annexure AS-1 in respect of long term capital gain earned by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members. The said long term capital gain was disclosed by Shri Rajendra Agarwal in his statement under section 132(4) and, therefore, it was surrendered and offered to tax by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members in the year of search. The AO himself has not made any addition in the hand of the assessee on account of long term capital gain which was found during the course of search and seizure. Thus,

49 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

except the material disclosing the long term capital gain in the hand of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, no other incriminating material either found or referred or is the basis of the addition made by the AO while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14. It is appropriate to refer relevant part of the assessment order in para 12 pages 48 to 50, para 19 page 83 and para 22 page 86 as under :-

“ 12. Submissions made on behalf of the assessee firm have been duly considered. However, even the very elaborate and case laws loaded submissions of the assessee are totally off the mark. Against the self- speaking facts of the very nature of the activities of the so called partner’s providing huge partner’s capital in the most uninterested manner and providing huge unsecured loans without any collateral or other security, the emphasis of the assessee firm in its submissions has been on seeking protection under various judicial decisions even without having any fact coherence. The submissions made by the assessee are completely devoid of merit in the light of the following facts and circumstances;

a. The department has very sound basis to treat, the receipts of unsecured loan and partner’s capital from the above mentioned companies as bogus and in genuine. The findings of this office and Investigation report of the Investigation Directorate Kolkata are not based on any presumption, assumption, guess or bare suspicion. Where the nature and source of a receipt, whether it be of money or other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open for the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source as enumerated the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC).

Prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled that the onus of

50 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on him. Where the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden is on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. It may also be pointed out that the burden of proof is fluid for the purposes of Section 68. Once assessee has submitted basic documents relating to identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness then AO must do some inquiry to call for more details to invoke Section 68.

b. The assessee firm has filed confirmation letters and this office has carried out further enquiry to examine the reality of the transactions. An enquiry was sent to the Investigation Directorate Kolkata and it has been established that these investor or lender Companies are controlled by the entry operators. The statements of various entry operators are sufficient evide4nces to show that the unsecured loan and partner’s capital are assessee’s own undisclosed income brought into the books of the assessee under the garb of unsecured loan and partner’s capital. c. The department has carried out search over the assessee group and during the course of search action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the incriminating documents seized during search proceedings vide pg no. 21 to 26 of Annexure AS-1 of Party B-1, wherein the details of year-wise LTCG earned by Shri Rajendra Agrawal and his family members, is maintained, which during search action has been accepted to be bogus by all family members in their respective statements.”

“19. In view of above facts of the case and in the light of above judicial decision, it is established that genuineness of the transaction has not been proved. Section 68 of the I.T. Act provides for charging to income tax on any sum credited in the books of the assessee maintained for any previous year if the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory. It places no duty upon the Assessing Officer to point to the source from which the money was received by the assessee. Where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and the nature of certain amount of credit during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is

51 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

entitled to draw the inference that the receipt are of an assessable nature. Thus, the assessee is unable to discharge its burden of proof by failing to establish lender’s identity, forget the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the lender. Hence, the unsecured loans and partner’s capital shown to have been received from various Kolkata Based Companies and other Companies remained unexplained. In the circumstances, I am left with no option than to tax the entire unexplained credits by way of partner’s capital and Unsecured loans received from the persons mentioned in para 5 above as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, chargeable to tax as income of the assessee firm for the respective assessment years.”

“ 22. After examination of the information and details placed on record and discussion with the assessee, the total income of the assessee is computed as under :-

Returned income as per ITR u/s 153A of the Rs. 2,82,83,460/- Act. Additions | Unexplained cash credits u/s Rs. 67,20,14,999/- | 68 of the Act in the form of | unsecured loan and partner’s | capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/-

The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant to Previous Year 2009-10 is assessed at Rs. 70,02,98,459/- u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of I.T. Act, 1961. The form ITNS-150 showing calculation of tax and interest chargeable, if any, is attached herewith and forms a part of this Order. A notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act and challan for payment of tax, if payable, is hereby issued. Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.”

The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely on the ground that the SLPs filed by the revenue in the cases of Kabul Chawla (supra) and M/s. All Cargo Global Logistics

52 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

(supra) etc. have been admitted for decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant part of the finding of the ld. CIT (A) in para 3.2.2 and 3.2.4 at pages 35 and 36 are as under :-

“3.2.2 As per the provisions of this section where a search is initiated u/s 132 of the Act, the A.O shall issue a notice requiring the person searched to furnish his return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made. Once such returns are filed, the AO has to assess or reassess the total income of such six assessment years.(emphasis supplied by me). (The decisive words used in the provisions are to 'assessee or reassess the total income'). The A.O. is thus duty bound to determine the 'total income' of the assessee for such six assessment years and it is obvious that 'total income' refers to the sum total of income in respect of which a person is assessable. The total income therefore will cover not only the income emanating from declared sources or any material placed before the Assessing Officer but from all sources including the undisclosed ones, or based on the unplaced material before the AO. 3.2.3 The concept of ‘assess or reassess’ and ‘shall abate’ as contemplated u/s 153A is under hot judicial debate. I find that legally, this issue is very contentious in view of the divergent views of the various authorities. The appellant has tried to highlight most of them. However, it is equally pertinent to mention here that the Department has not accepted the decisions of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of M/s All Cargo Global Logistics as well as Continental Warehousing (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., and SLP has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted leave vide order dated 12.10.2015 as reported in 64 taxmann.com 34 (S.C.). Similarly, in the case of Kabul Chawla SLP has also been filed.

3.2.4 In view of SLPs admitted in case of Kabul Chawla, M/s All Cargo Global Logistics as well as Continental Warehousing (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., (supra), assessee’s contention cannot be accepted. Moreover, in any case, the additions are to be adjudicated on merits as per relevant ground of appeal, the issue raised in this ground for present remains for academic discussion only. Accordingly, issue raised in ground no. 12 is dismissed.”

53 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

Therefore, neither in the assessment order nor in the order of the ld. CIT (A) there is any mention or finding that the additions have been made by the AO on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search and seizure in the case of the assessee. The AO has solely relied upon the report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of one Shri Anand Sharma recorded by the Investigation Wing during the survey under section 133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment years where the assessment was not pending on the date of search and the proceedings are in the nature of reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this issue in which the SLP filed by the revenue was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the additions made by the AO while passing the assessment orders under section 153A for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are not sustainable and accordingly the same are liable to be deleted. We order accordingly.”

Since the facts involved as well as the contentions of both the parties for both the

assessment years are same, therefore, our finding in the case of Kota Dall Mill on

this issue is applicable in this case also. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO

without any material much less the incriminating material is not sustainable in law.

Further, the report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is also not a material or

document either found or detected during the search and seizure action in case of

the assessee but it pertains to the investigation carried out by the Investigation

Wing Kolkata in a separate matter. Therefore, the said report will not partake the

54 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

character of incriminating material found or seized during the course of search and

seizure action in the case of the assessee. Hence the additions made by the AO

while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act are deleted for want of

incriminating material.

Ground No. 2 of the Cross Objection common for both the assessment years is regarding the violation of principles of natural justice for not granting the cross examination of the alleged accommodation entry provider.

addition is the report of investigation wing Kolkata which in turn based on the

statement of one Sh. Amit Kedia and Sh. Alok Harlalka whereas the assessee was

not given the opportunity of cross examination despite repeated requests and

demands. The AO has violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the

copies of material used against the assessee at the assessment stage and further

not providing the opportunity of cross examination of the witness during the

assessment stage as well as appellate stage. Though the ld. CIT (A) called for a

remand report and asked the AO to provide opportunity of cross examination to the

assessee, however, after the remand proceedings the AO did not afford an

opportunity of cross examination rather the AO has asked the assessee to produce

the witness instead of allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness. In

support of his contention, the ld. A/R has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central

Excise (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC). He has also relied on the decision Hon’ble Delhi

High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) and submitted

55 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

that the Hon’ble High Court has held that once there is a violation of principles of

natural justice inasmuch as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor was

permitted to cross examine a person on whose statement the AO relied upon, it

would amount to deficiency and denial of natural justice. The ld. A/R has then

referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs.

ACIT, 387 ITR 561 (Bombay). Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that once the

assessee has already discharged its primary onus to prove the cash credit by

furnishing relevant documents, substantiated identity, creditworthiness and

genuineness of the transaction, then the burden is shifted on the AO to disprove the

documents produced by the assessee in support of the claim. The AO has relied

upon the statement of Shri Anand Sharma and others and no material was brought

on record to controvert the documentary evidence filed by the assessee. Thus the

ld. A/R has stated that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A)

be deleted.

the information from Investigation Directorate, Kolkata regarding involvement of the

assessee group in obtaining entries of bogus share capital, share premium etc.

detected in the investigation carried out by the DIT Kolkata. Such information was

received even prior to initiation of proceedings under section 153A and also during

the pendency of proceedings under section 153A. Once the AO has confronted the

assessee with the report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata as well as the statement

of Shri Anand Sharma and other persons who have admitted to have provided

accommodation entries of bogus share capital and premium etc. to the various

56 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

parties through their companies and concerns and assessee has shown the share

capital and premium from those concerns, then onus was shifted on the assessee to

establish the genuineness of the transactions of share capital and premium etc.

During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO again conducted enquiries

through Investigation Wing Kolkata regarding the genuineness of the transaction

and the assessee was duly confronted with the results of all these enquiries and

information shared by the Investigation Wing Kolkata. In these circumstances and

in the interest of natural justice, the assessee was required to produce the alleged

creditors for examination so that genuineness of share capital and premium etc.

could be verified by the AO. Despite providing several opportunities, the assessee

miserably failed to produce any creditor. The assessee never expressed its inability

to produce the alleged creditor nor the assessee requested the AO to issue summon

to the alleged creditor for verification of the genuineness of the cash credit in the

form of share capital and premium etc. It is evident that the assessee never

intended to produce the alleged creditor. The ld. D/R has further submitted that the

present case is not one where assessee obtained small loans or insignificant share

capital so that the assessee could take the plea that it is not in a position to ensure

presence of alleged creditors. The size of the transactions which are tainted share

capital and share premium etc. constitute the major portion of entire capital of the

assessee and other group companies. Thus the assessee has failed to establish

the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction.

The addition is not made merely on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing

Kolkata but the AO conducted enquiry through Investigation Wing and statements of

entry operators were also recorded, therefore, overwhelming evidences in the

57 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

possession of the AO indicate bogus nature of transaction of loan and partners’

capital which has been extensively discussed in the assessment order. During the

course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was provided a number of

opportunities for producing the alleged creditors for verification and failure of the

assessee in producing the creditors in the light of the evidences was enough to

invoke the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act. The ld. D/R has further submitted

that the repayment of loan for credit entries also does not in itself prove the

transactions to be genuine. Shell companies are used to provide accommodation

entries and even reversal of an entry does not ipso facto prove the genuineness of

the initial credit entry. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the

decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Navodaya Castles Pvt.

Ltd., 226 Taxman 190 (Mag.) and submitted that the SLP filed by the assessee was

dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 230 Taxman 268 (SC). Thus it

is evident that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus to rebut the evidence

unearthed by the Investigation Wing Kolkata which shows that the transactions of

share capital and premium etc. are nothing but bogus accommodation entries

wherein the assessee’s own undisclosed income has been routed in the garb of

share capital and premium etc. As regards cross examination of the witnesses, since

the witnesses belong to Kolkata and statements were also recorded at Kolkata by

the Investigation Wing, therefore, it was not possible for the AO to issue summon to

the witnesses for cross examination at the office of the AO at Kota. The ld. CIT D/R

has relied upon the order of the AO.

record. An identical issue has been considered and decided by us in the case of

58 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

group concern, namely, M/s. Kota Dall Mill in ITA Nos. 997 to 1002/JP/2018 and 1119/JP/2018 and others vide order dated 31st December, 2018 in para 11 and 11.1

as under :-

“11. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. For the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee has challenged the addition sustained by ld. CIT (A) in respect of unsecured loan from M/s. Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. The other additions made by the AO on account of unsecured loans as well as partners’ capital for the assessment year 2010-11 were deleted by the ld. CIT (A) on the ground that the AO was not having in his possession even the statement of the concerned persons in support of his finding that the alleged loan and partners’ capital is nothing but bogus accommodation entries. Therefore, the revenue has challenged that part of the order in the cross appeal. The ld. A/R of the assessee has pointed out that for the assessment year 2010-11 there was no loan from the company controlled by Shri Anand Sharma, M/s. Royal Crystal Dealers Pvt. Ltd. but the assessee took the loan from M/s. Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. which is not the company owned or controlled by Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) has sustained the addition in respect of loan from M/s. Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. in para 5.1 to 5.12 as under :-

“5.1 In this respect, I find that Shri Anand Sharma whose statement is reproduced at Page 56 of the Assessment Order has clearly accepted that M/s Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. is beneficiary company like Kota Dal Mill and both of these were provided bogus loans/advances by Royal Crystal Dealer Pvt. Ltd which is a paper company controlled by him. He further stated that the beneficiary party such i.e, M/s Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. gave him cash in lieu of which cheques was given by him for some commission income. He also admitted that some paper companies have sold to beneficiary parties. Though, in the initial report dated 28.11.2017, M/s Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. was treated a party in Rajasthan, in later report dated 06.12.2017 the entry operator Shri Anand Sharma was linked with M/s Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. as per the data base prepared by Directorate of

59 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

InvestigationKolkata The relevant part of the said statement as reproduced on page no.57 of the assessment order is as under: -

5.2 However, it is the submission of the Appellant that no notice under Section 131 or 133(6) of the Act was issued to this company, either by the Ld. AO or by the concerned AO or by the DDIT (Inv.) Kolkata. Also, on bare perusal of the assessment order, it is evident that the name of the said companies does not appear in the statement of any of the entry operators as reproduced by the AO in the Assessment Order. However, the relevant documents including the Ledger a/c showing the transactions with appellant company, Source sheet of funds of transactions made with

60 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

the Appellant, Copy of bank statement showing the transactions, etc. stand submitted for confirmation of the transaction of loan with the Appellant. 5.3 In my considered view, as the name of M/s Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. is clearly mentioned as beneficiary company in the statement of Shri Anand Sharma, and Shri Anand Sharma is mentioned that some of such paper company are sold to beneficiary party, in view of fact that name of M/s Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. Is mentioned in the reports as discussed in para 4.4.7 above, a genuine doubt is raised on the identity and genuineness of company. Further, the adverse facts pointed out in the reports as discussed in para 4.4.7 above for established background of all these share holders / depositors being the puppet in the hand of one or other accommodation entry providers, layering the transaction by cheque deposit on the same day or preceding day of share application / deposits, the assertions of the AO for no-creditworthiness or in-adequate creditworthiness of the so-called shareholders / depositors holds fields. During the appellate proceeding before me, though paper books for relevant AY and common Paper Books have been submitted, the same does not adduce any evidence to rebut the adverse factual finding made by the AO in the assessment order as mentioned by me in Para 4.1 above and categorically mentioned in the reports as discussed in para 4.4.7 above. Under these adverse background of appellant employing modus-operendi of resorting accommodation entry provider to build-up share capital / unsecured loans by foul means, what the AO is vehemently making the case for is the law on the issue-section 68 of Income-tax Act has to be applied by evolving perceptions for the law on the issue and not on the basis of routine perceptions on the law on the issue that is losing their relevance. 5.4 With all due respect to authorities cited by the appellant for canvassing his stand point, I am not able to persuade my conscience to agree with appellants arguments. In my considered opinion, under the adverse background of appellant employing modus-operendi of resorting accommodation entry provider to build-up unsecured loans as established in the assessment order as briefly highlighted in Para 4.1 above, and armed with several authorities on the issue cited by the AO, I fully agree with the view taken by AO. However, to fortify the finding of the AO and to highlight the guiding principle on adjudicating non-genuine unsecured loans raised through accommodation entry proviers, I place further reliance on few more case laws with underlining the similarity of adverse facts prevailing in the present case as follows:- 5.5 In case of Suman Gupta V/s. Income Tax Officer ITAT, Agra Bench (2012) 138 ITD 0153 held as under:-

61 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

The AO discussed each and every creditor in the assessment order and the crux of the findings of the AO had been that there were very small bank balances in the bank accounts of the creditors and they were having meager income and as such, they were not men of means to advance any loan to the assessee. It is well settled law that burden is upon the assessee to prove ingredients of section 68 of the Act by proving identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. The assessee has, however, failed to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors who were having only meager income. No details of their savings have been filed. The assessee has never shown his willingness to produce the remaining creditors for examination before the AO. Therefore, the genuineness of the transaction could not have been examined by the AO. The smallness of the bank balance in the bank accounts of the creditors prior to issue of cheques would clearly reveal that they were not having any source and it was the money of the assessee which was routed through the bank accounts of the creditors for the purpose of giving credits to the assessee. These were, therefore, accommodation entries only and as such, could not be considered as genuine transactions. Merely because the loans have been received through banking channel, is not sacrosanct to make a non-genuine transaction as genuine transaction. On consideration of the facts of the case in the light of above discussion and decision, there is no justification to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness of all the creditors and no source of their income has been filed. At the best the assessee is able to prove identity of the creditors, but the assessee failed to prove the genuine credit in the matter. All the creditors have been rightly found to be men of meager means and no source of income have been filed to prove that they were having sufficient funds or savings in order to give loans to the assessee. On verification of the bank account of the depositors, it was specifically found that there were no sufficient funds available in their bank account and they were having only small bank balance, which was even not sufficient to meet out their household expenses or day-to-day requirements. Therefore, it is unbelievable to accept the contention of the assessee that said persons were having creditworthiness to advance any loan to the assessee. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition u/s. 68 of the IT Act. In the present case, the assessee has not adduced any sufficient evidence before the authorities below to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions in the matter.

62 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

Therefore, the assessee has not satisfied the essential ingredients of section 68 of the IT Act. Conclusion: Merely because the loans have been received through banking channel, is not sacrosanct to make a non-genuine transaction as genuine transaction.

The above decision is confirmed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court vide their judgment in ITA No.680/12 vide judgment dated 07.08.2012 and SLP of assessee was dismissed before the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in 2013-LL-0122-69 5.6 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. reported at (2014) 367 ITR 0306 involving exactly similar facts observed in Para 2, 3 then Para 2 as under:-

63 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

the summons issued to the shareholders under Section 131 had been received back unserved in five cases and he was requested to provide the present postal address of the parties. Inthemeanwhile, the Assessing Officer managed to get hold of the bank statements of the shareholders, who had allegedly made deposits by way of cheques and pay orders. The assessment order specifically records that huge cash deposits in lacs were being regularly deposited in the said accounts and then pay orders/cheques were issued to the respondent assessee. 8. On 14th December, 2009, authorized representative appeared and stated that the assessee was unable to produce directors or principal officers of the six shareholder companies pleading that they were not shareholders now and seven years had passed since the transactions took place. The assessment order records and mentions about the transactions recorded in the bank accounts of the shareholder/entry operator companies to show and establish that there was immediate deposit of cash and then issue of cheques. It was further mentioned that these companies were under control of one Mahesh Garg and his group, who were operating various accounts. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.54,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act and Rs.1,08,000/- as commission paid for procuring the said shares being 2% of Rs.54,00,000/-. .................................................................................................................... ……..……………………………………………………………………………………… 11. We have heard the Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue, who has relied upon decisions of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169 (Delhi), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., 206 (2014) DLT 97 (DB) (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax-II Vs. MAF Academy P. Ltd., 206 (2014) DLT 277 (DB) (Del). The aforesaid decisions mentioned above refer to the earlier decisions of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd., [1994] 205 ITR 98 (FB)(Delhi), CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Limited [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) and observations of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Lovely Exports P. Ltd. [2008] 319 ITR (St.) 5 (SC).

64 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

prior to issue of cheque/pay orders etc. would only raise suspicion and, it was for the Assessing Officer to conduct further investigation, but it did not follow that the money belonged to the assessee and was their unaccounted money, which had been channelized. 13. As we perceive, there are two sets of judgments and cases, but these judgments and cases proceed on their own facts. In one set of cases, the assessee produced necessary documents/evidence to show and establish identity of the shareholders, bank account from which payment was made, the fact that payments were received thorough banking channels, filed necessary affidavits of the shareholders or confirmations of the directors of the shareholder companies, but thereafter no further inquiries were conducted. The second set of cases are those where there was evidence and material to show that the shareholder company was only a paper company having no source of income, but had made substantial and huge investments in the form of share application money. The assessing officer has referred to the bank statement, financial position of the recipient and beneficiary assessee and surrounding circumstances. The primary requirements, which should be satisfied in such cases is, identification of the creditors/shareholder, creditworthiness of creditors/shareholder and genuineness of the transaction. These three requirements have to be tested not superficially but in depth having regard to the human probabilities and normal course of human conduct. 14. Certificate of incorporation, PAN number etc. are relevant for purchase of identification, but have their limitation when there is evidence and material to show that the subscriber was a paper company and not a genuine investor. It is in this context, the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) had observed:- “Now we shall proceed to examine the validity of those grounds that appealed to the learned judges. It is true that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real. In a case of the present kind a party who relies on a recital in a deed has to establish the truth of those recitals, otherwise it will be very easy to make self-serving statements in documents either executed or taken by a party and rely on those recitals. If all that an assessee who wants to evade tax is to have some recitals made in a document either executed by him or executed in his favour then the door will be left wide open to evade tax. A little probing was sufficient in the present case to show that the apparent was not the real. The taxing authorities were not required to put on

65 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. They were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents.”

“32. The tribunal also erred in law in holding Assessing Officer ought to have proved that the monies emanated from the coffers of the assessee- company and came back as share capital. Section 68 permits the Assessing Officer to add the credit appearing in the books of account of the assessee if the latter offers no explanation regarding the nature and source of the credit or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. It places no duty upon him to point to the source from which the money was received by the assessee. In A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v CIT, (1958) 34 ITR 807, this argument advanced by the assessee was rejected by the Supreme Court. Venkatarama Iyer, J., speaking for the court observed as under (@ page 810):-

“Now the contention of the appellant is that assuming that he had failed to establish the case put forward by him, it does not follow as a matter of law that the amounts in question were income received or accrued during the previous year, that it was the duty of the Department to adduce evidence to show from what source the income was derived and why it should be treated as concealed income. In the absence of such evidence, it is argued, the finding is erroneous. We are unable to agree. Whether a receipt is to be treated as income or not, must depend very largely on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case the receipts are shown in the account books of a firm of which the appellant and Govindaswamy Mudaliar were partners. When he was called upon to give explanation he put forward two explanations, one being a gift of Rs. 80,000 and the other being receipt of Rs. 42,000 from business of which he claimed to be the real owner. When both these explanations were rejected, as they have been it was clearly upon to the Income-tax Officer to hold that the income must be concealed income. There is ample authority for the position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received

66 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipt are of an assessable nature. The conclusion to which the Appellate Tribunal came appears to us to be amply warranted by the facts of the case. There is no ground for interfering with that finding, and these appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs.”(emphasis supplied)

Section 68 recognizes the aforesaid legal position. The view taken by the Tribunal on the duty cast on the Assessing Officer by section 68 is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment cited above. Even if one were to hold, albeit erroneously and without being aware of the legal position adumbrated above, that the Assessing Officer is bound to show that the source of the unaccounted monies was the coffers of the assessee, we are inclined to think that in the facts of the present case such proof has been brought out by the Assessing Officer. The statements of Mukesh Gupta and RajanJassal, the entry providers, explaining their modus operandi to help assessee’s having unaccounted monies convert the same into accounted monies affords sufficient material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer can be said to have discharged the duty. The statements refer to the practice of taking cash and issuing cheques in the guise of subscription to share capital, for a consideration in the form of commission. As already pointed out, names of several companies which figured in the statements given by the above persons to the investigation wing also figured as share-applicants subscribing to the shares of the assessee-company. These constitute materials upon which one could reasonably come to the conclusion that the monies emanated from the coffers of the assessee-company. The Tribunal, apart from adopting an erroneous legal approach, also failed to keep in view the material that was relied upon by the Assessing Officer. The CIT (Appeals) also fell into the same error. If such material had been kept in view, the Tribunal could not have failed to draw the appropriate inference. 16. In the said case, the Division Bench had also examined the decision of the Supreme Court in Lovely Exports P. Ltd. (supra) and other cases in which the assessee had succeeded. It was noticed that in the case of Lovely Exports P. Ltd. affidavits/confirmations of shareholders were filed and income tax record numbers of the shareholders were made available, but the Assessing Officer, who had sufficient time, failed to carry out inquiry and examination. reference was made to the observations in Divine Leasing (supra) to the effect that there cannot be two opinions

67 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

on the aspect that the pernicious practice of conversion of unaccounted money through the masquerade or channel of investment as share capital must be firmly excoriated by the Revenue, but when there is preponderance of evidence to show absence of culpability, the assessee should not be harassed by the Revenue. A delicate balance must be maintained between the two interests. In Divine Leasing (supra), the following proposition was elucidated:-

“In this analysis, a distillation of the precedents yields the following propositions of law in the context of Section 68 of the IT Act. The assessed has to prima facie prove (1) the identity of the creditor/subscriber; (2) the genuineness of the transaction, namely, whether it has been transmitted through banking or other indisputable channels; (3) the credit worthiness or financial strength of the creditor/subscriber. (4) If relevant details of the address or PAN identity of the creditor/subscriber are furnished to the Department along with copies of the Shareholders Register, Share Application Forms, Share Transfer Register etc. it would constitute acceptable proof or acceptable Explanation by the assessed. (5) The Department would not be justified in drawing an adverse inference only because the creditor/subscriber fails or neglects to respond to its notices; (6) the onus would not stand discharged if the creditor/subscriber denies or repudiates the transaction set up by the assessed nor should the AO take such repudiation at face value and construe it, without more, against the assessed. (7) The Assessing Officer is duty-bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditor/subscriber the genuineness of the transaction and the veracity of the repudiation.”

68 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

is to go after the share applicants in accordance with law. We are afraid that we cannot apply the ratio to a case, such as the present one, where the Assessing Officer is in possession of material that discredits and impeaches the particulars furnished by the assessee and also establishes the link between self-confessed “accommodation entry providers”, whose business it is to help assessees bring into their books of account their unaccounted monies through the medium of share subscription, and the assessee. The ratio is inapplicable to a case, again such as the present one, where the involvement of the assessee in such modus operandi is clearly indicated by valid material made available to the Assessing Officer as a result of investigations carried out by the revenue authorities into the activities of such “entry providers”. The existence with the Assessing Officer of material showing that the share subscriptions were collected as part of a pre- meditated plan – a smokescreen – conceived and executed with the connivance or involvement of the assessee excludes the applicability of the ratio. In our understanding, the ratio is attracted to a case where it is a simple question of whether the assessee has discharged the burden placed upon him under sec.68 to prove and establish the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicant and the genuineness of the transaction. In such a case, the Assessing Officer cannot sit back with folded hands till the assessee exhausts all the evidence ormaterial in his possession and then come forward to merely reject the same, without carrying out any verification or enquiry into the material placed before him. The case before us does not fall under this category and it would be a travesty of truth and justice to express a view to the contrary.”

69 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

cannot simply furnish some details and remain quiet when summons issued to shareholders remain un-served and uncomplied. As a general proposition, it would be improper to universally hold that the assessee cannot plead that they had received money, but could do nothing more and it was for the Assessing Officer to enforce shareholders’ attendance in spite of the fact that the shareholders were missing and not available. Their reluctance and hiding may reflect on the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor. It would be also incorrect to universally state that an Inspector must be sent to verify the shareholders/subscribers at the available addresses, though this might be required in some cases. Similarly, it would be incorrect to state that the Assessing Officer should ascertain and get addresses from the Registrar of Companies’ website or search for the addresses of shareholders themselves. Creditworthiness is not proved by showing issue and receipt of a cheque or by furnishing a copy of statement of bank account, when circumstances requires that there should be some more evidence of positive nature to show that the subscribers had made genuine investment or had, acted as angel investors after due diligence or for personal reasons. The final conclusion must be pragmatic and practical, which takes into account holistic view of the entire evidence including the difficulties, which the assessee may face to unimpeachably establish creditworthiness of the shareholders.

“18. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer referred to the provisions of Section 68 of the Actand their applicability. The word “identity” as defined, it was observed meant the condition or fact of a person or thing being that specified unique person or thing. The identification of the person would include the place of work, the staff, the fact that it was actually carrying on business and recognition of the said company in the eyes of public. Merely producing PAN number or assessment particulars did not establish the identity of the person. The actual and true identity of the person or a company was the business undertaken by them. This according to us is the correct and true legal position, as identity, creditworthiness and genuineness have to be established. PAN numbers are allotted on the basis of applications without actual de facto verification of the identity or ascertaining active nature of business activity. PAN is a number which is allotted and helps the Revenue keep track of the transactions. PAN number is relevant but cannot

70 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

be blindly and without considering surrounding circumstances treated as sufficient to discharge the onus, even when payment is through bank account.

71 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

of Income Tax (Appeals) and upheld the deletion of the addition. In fact, they substantially relied upon and quoted the decision of its coordinate bench in the case of MAF Academy P. Ltd., a decision which has been overturned by the Delhi High Court vide its judgment in C.I.T vs. MAF Academy P.Ltd [ (2014) 206 DLT 277). In the impugned order it is accepted that the assessee was unable to produce directors and principal officers of the six shareholder companies and also the fact that as per the information and details collected by the Assessing Officer from the concerned bank, the Assessing Officer has observed that there were genuine concerns about identity, creditworthiness of shareholders as well as genuineness of the transactions.

As reported at 2015-TIOL-314-SC-IT, in the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed to effect that ‘merely because the assessee has been able to show that the shareholder companies were duly incorporated and their identity & genuineness stands established, there were deposits of cash in the bank accounts prior to issue of cheque or pay orders, the same would raise suspicion and addition can be made on such account’ 5.7 It may be mentioned that as reported at 2016-TIOL-207-SC-IT, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed SLP by Rick Lunsford Trade & Investment Ltd in case of Rick Lunsford Trade & Investment Ltd Vs CIT ‘upholding that it is open to the Revenue Department to make addition on account of alleged share capital u/s 68, where the assessee company has failed to show genuineness of its shareholders.’ 5.8 Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax-II V/s MAF Academy Pvt. Ltd. involving exactly similar facts in ITA 341/2012 dated 28th November, 2013 observed in Para 33 to 36 as under:

72 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

from the Directors/family members of the Directors. The remaining share capital had been infused from parties which were completely unrelated either to the Assessee or to any of its Directors. In a private limited company, normally the investment of shares is from parties or persons who are friends or relatives of Promoters/Directors. 34. It is noticed that the shares had face value of Rs.100 /- and were allotted at a premium of Rs.100 /- to Rs.200/- and were then subsequently purchased by the Promoters/Directors, who had originally transferred these shares at Rs.35 /- per share. 35. It is really surprising that a person who had purchased shares at a premium of Rs.100 /- to Rs.200/- per share i.e. at a price of Rs.200 /- to Rs.300/- per share, sold the shares at Rs.35 /- per share i.e at a substantial loss. Another surprising factor is that the entire investment happened during a short span of time and re-transfer of the shares to the four Promoters/Directors of the company at Rs.35 /- per share by different parties also happened during a short span of few days. The modus operandi and the manner in which cash is deposited in a bank and then utilized by way of an account payee cheque for purchase of shares for a premium of Rs.100 /- to Rs.200/- per share and then the sale of shares at a loss clearly establishes that the said transaction was a camouflage transaction. The Assessee has clearly attempted to camouflage the accommodation entries and tried to give it a colour of purchase of share capital and then sale of the same at a loss. Thus the Assessee's capital increased or was enhanced by a substantial figure through these dubious transactions. This should be and has to be checked. 36. Out of Rs.4.35 crores received as share capital including premium, only Rs.92 lacs has been received from the directors or their family members and the remaining amount has been received from parties totally unrelated to the Assessee. Notices to some of the investors could not be served and even the Inspector who was deputed to serve the summons stated that none of the addresses could be found. The authorised representative of the Assessee refused to produce the parties who had invested in the share capital on the ground that they were not in a position to produce them. The fact that the Assessee failed to produce the persons who had invested towards share capital shows that these were people who were completely unrelated to the Assessee and as such, all the entries were merely accommodation entries. Otherwise, in a private limited company, it would not have been difficult on

73 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

the part of the Assessee to produce persons who were investing substantial amount of money in the company towards share capital. 37. The Assessing Officer in his order has as a sample referred to the entries in the account of some of the share holders noticing that there are cash deposits of the exact amount for which cheque is subsequently issued to the Assessee. Perusal of the bank statements clearly establishes that these parties were depositing cash and immediately either on the same day or in the near future withdrawing the same through a cheque which was issued in favour of the Assessee.

Then Hon’ble Delhi High Court held in Para 53 to 54 as under:-

5.9 Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench: 'B’ in case of M/s. Amtrac Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle 1(1), involving exactly similar facts in their appellate order ITA No.2920/Del/09 for A.Y. 2005-06 dated 31.12.2009 observed in Para 3 & then Para 2 as under:-

74 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

confirmation of deposit from directors of the respective company, copies of income tax return filed and copies of bank statement reflecting the above transactions. In order to verify the entire transactions in the Asstt. year 2005-06 light of genuineness and creditworthiness, he issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to all the above 15 persons. They were asked to produce the copies of return for AY. 2005-06 and their ledger accounts from which the source of above share application money could have been verified. All the above summons were returned unserved with the comments from the postal authorities as "no such person in the above address". The AO accordingly brought this fact to the notice of the counsel of the assessee vide order sheet entry dated 18.12.2007 and he was given an opportunity to produce the functional directors of the above companies for verification. As mentioned in the assessment order, after certain adjournments, a letter was finally filed from the appellant mentioning that it is no in touch of the above share holders and their present whereabouts are not known to it. The appellant, however, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. In which the powers of the Assessing Officer was not precluded from making enquiries in share application money, submitted that no addition can be made. 2.1.1 The AO however was not convinced with the submission of the appellant. He observed that that it was only in the course of enquiry that he tried to examine the above share applicants. Since the summons issued to such persons remained unserved, it became the duty of the appellant either to produce them for verification or to state their correct addresses. It appears to be highly improper that in a Private Ltd. Company, the assessee is not in a position to state the exact whereabouts or fail to produce the persons who collectively hold more than 25% of its total share holding. He also observed that mere filing of Asstt. year 2005-06 confirmation letters do not absolve the appellant from its onus to prove the credit entries reflected in its books of accounts as has been held by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd.[1991] 187 ITR 596. He further observed that the facts that the amount were paid by account payee cheques do not make it satisfactory as held in CIT vs. Precision finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal.). Even income -tax file particulars, where the share holder is assessed to tax is not sufficient as found in CIT vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal.) 2.1.2 The AO also referred the enquiry initiated by investigation wing of the Department in August 2003 which culminated into detection of many entry operators who are operating number of accounts in the same bank/branch or in different branches, in the names of companies, firms, proprietary concerns and individuals.

75 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

For the operations of these bank accounts, filing income tax returns etc. persons are hired. Like any other business it does requires manpower according to the scale of operation. Except for two or three persons who are required regularly to visit banks and do other spade work like collection of cash etc., most of the other persons involved are on part time basis. The part time employees are called as and when required to sign documents, cheque books etc. Some of the entry operators have also roped in their own relatives for operation of entry accounts and filing the income tax returns. Interestingly most of these concerns / individuals have obtained PAN from the department and are filing returns as well. What is shown in the returns is not the actual state of affairs. For example with one PAN several bank accounts are simultaneously Asstt. year 2005-06 operated and only one account might be shown for the purpose of audit and filing income tax returns. The entry operators provide entry in the garb of share application money, gifts, loans etc. through these accounts, in lieu of cash, to any person who is having unaccounted money.

2.1.2.1 The AO observed that some of the companies show above by the appellant as its share holders were found to have stated before investigation wing that they were mere name lender for advancing money. To quote some of them, Shri Rajesh Bansal, Director of M/s. Rubicon Associates Pvt. Ltd., Shri Mahesh Garg, Director of M/s. S.J. Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. Etc. have categorically stated before the Investigation wing, in their statement taken on oath, that they used to take the amount in cash and give entries to different concerns as gift, loan or share application money. According to AO, to enquire into this aspect also, the appellant was asked to produce the functional directors of such share holders. 2.1.3. In view of these facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer concluded that the credit in the name of these shareholders are not genuine and represents unexplained cash credits. Accordingly he made addition of Rs. 1.50 lakhs to the returned income.

Then Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench: 'B’ held in Para 6 as under:

76 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

acknowledgment of return etc. However when the AO conducted inquiry at the stated address, summons were received back unserved with the postal remark "no such person in the above address". This fact was Asstt. year 2005-06 brought to the notice of assessee also. Thereafter the assessee except producing the papers could not prove existence or availability of the respective share applicants. When the identity of the person is required to be proved so as to examine whether in fact they have applied for allotment of shares, the existence itself is not proved. The existence of a person is not merely on paper. Particularly when the AO required the assessee to produce the share applicants and particularly when at the stated address the share applicants do not found to be existing, it cannot be said that the amount received by assessee is proved to be towards share capital. The transaction cannot be proved merely on paper. Neither before AO nor before Ld. CIT (A) the assessee could make the share applicants available. Therefore when the identity of the person itself is not proved, the amount received by assessee cannot be considered to be genuinely received.

6.1. It is also to be noted that the assessee company is stated to have issued shares at premium 9 times its face value. The assessee is a private limited company. It has not issued prospectus for issue of shares nor under the Companies Act 1956, it can invite the public to apply for and allot the shares. The company is prohibited from making any invitation for allotment of shares. How the premium was fixed is not forth coming. Looking to the balance sheet or past history of assessee, the assessee company has never declared dividend in the past. The company has no business plans which can raise its profitability in the near future. The income declared by the assessee is only by way of short term capital gain and the assessee do not seem to have carried on any business. Asstt. year 2005-06 In such circumstances the share premium is not found to be justified by any of the act on the part of assessee. These facts are revealing more than the apparent shown on the paper. All these facts put together reveal that neither the identity of the share applicants are proved nor justification for share premium has been proved. In such circumstances the court cannot put blinker on the eye and look only at the papers presented before it. There is something more than that meets the eye. As rightly contended by Ld. DR in such situation the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 and in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 are apt for application. We therefore do not find any reason to hold that the share capital receipts by assessee were from persons

77 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

whose identity is established and the amount is genuinely received towards share capital.

5.10 In a recent decision in case of Principal Commissioner Of Income vs Bikram Singh in ITA 55/2017, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held on 25 August, 2017 as under:-

"...16. In this analysis, a distillation of the precedents yields the following propositions of law in the context of Section 68 of the IT Act. The assessee has to prima facie prove (1) the identity of the creditor/subscriber; (2) the genuineness of the transaction, namely, whether it has been transmitted through banking or other indisputable channels; (3) the creditworthiness or financial strength of the creditor/subscriber. (4) If relevant details of the address or PAN identity of the creditor/subscriber are furnished to the Department along with copies of the Shareholders Register, Shared Application Forms, Share Transfer Register etc. it would constitute acceptable proof or acceptable explanation by the assessee. (5) The Department would not be justified in drawing an adverse inference only because the creditor/subscriber fails or neglects to respond to its notices; (6) the onus would not stand discharged if the creditor/subscriber denies or repudiates the transaction set up by the assessee nor should the AO take such repudiation at face value and construe it, without more, against the assesee. (7) The Assessing Officer is duty-bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditor /subscriber the genuineness of the transaction and the veracity of the repudiation...."

78 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

burden is discharged that the onus shifts to the Revenue. This Court in Kamdhenu (supra) referred to CIT v. Sophia Finance, 205 ITR 98 which had held to the same effect. The Divine leasing (supra) and Sophia Finance (supra) judgments were reiterated by this Court in Dwarkadhish (supra). Thus, the law in relation to Section 68 is well settled. ............................................................................................................................... 43. The transactions in the present appeal are yet another example of the constant use of the deception of loan entries to bring unaccounted money into banking channels. This device of loan entries continues to plague the legitimate economy of our country. As seen from the facts narrated above, the transactions herein clearly do not inspire confidence as being genuine and are shrouded in mystery, as to why the so-called creditors would lend such huge unsecured, interest free loans - that too without any agreement. In the absence of the same, the creditors fail the test of creditworthiness and the transactions fail the test of genuineness.

5.11 In my considered view, the technical objections raised by the Appellant in respect of loan from M/s Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. are of no avail to the appellant due to following undisputed facts:-

i. It is undisputed fact that the Income Tax Department has made tremendous investigations in such shell companies of Kolkata, Mumbai and Delhi providing accommodation entry and statements made by several accommodation entry providers have become virtually in public domain. It is no argument that the AO did not provide such statement before the assessement or in any of the notices. These facts were well known to the appellant group and ignorance is mere pretence. ii. Moreover, such statements are so vocal and undeniable that as mentioned in some of the case laws above, cross-examination of such accommodation entry provides by thousands of beneficiaries across India is neither practicable nor viable and therefore uncalled for. iii. It is undisputed fact that in the statement dated 06.02.2014 Shri Anand Sharma had admitted to be one of such accommodation entry providers. The sum and substance of the said statement is that the concern M/s Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the activities of providing accommodation entries and the appellant happened to be one of such beneficiary of such concern. It is also admitted fact that Shri Anand Sharma had been running the affair of the said company.

79 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

v. The statement of Shri Anand Sharma in which name of M/s Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. cannot be completely ignored solely on the legal grounds raised by the Appellant.

5.12 In view of above discussion, it is clear that the incriminating material had been found during the course of search of accommodation entry provider. Further incriminating material had been gathered by issuing commission to DDIT (Inv.) Kolkata, during the assessment proceedings and all such material have been shared with the appellant at least during the remand report proceeding. In view of nation-wide known scam by the accommodation entry providers of Kolkata and elsewhere burst by the Income Tax Department, there was no need to provide opportunity for cross-examination of same accommodation entry providers. Any way in the rejoinder submission to remand report the appellant is absolutely silient on cross- examination and by such conduct he has forgone his right to cross-examine. Therefore, the principles of natural justice have been followed. As discussed in preceding paras, under the facts and circumstance of the case, it could not be said that AO did not followed the binding decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble jurisdiction Court. Therefore, in view of above facts discussed in Para 4.1 & 4.4.7, 5.1 to 5.3 and legal position apprised in Para 5.5 to 5.11 above, it is held that the addition made by the AO on account of unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 12,36,49,999/- from M/s Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. sustainable and the same is confirmed.”

Thus the addition was confirmed based on the report of the DDIT (Inv.) Kolkata. We find that the report of the DDIT (Inv.) Kolkata is also based on the statements of various persons recorded during their investigation and the statement of Shri Anand Sharma was also sent along with the report of the AO. The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition because of the reason that the statement of Shri Anand Sharma was very much in the possession of the AO who has admitted in his statement that M/s. Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entry. However, we find that M/s. Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd is not managed or controlled by Shri Anand Sharma, rather the company M/s. Royal Crystal Dealers Pvt. Ltd. was stated to have been owned by Shri Anand Sharma and in his statement dated 6th February, 2014 Shri Anand Sharma has stated to have been providing entries from M/s. Royal Crystal Dealers Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, there is no allegation or any admission in the statement of Shri Anand Sharma that he has provided bogus loan entry to the

80 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

assessee or any group concerns of the assessee. Since the name of M/s. Jalsagar Commerce was crepted in his statement, the AO has presumed that the loan provided by M/s. Jalsagar Commerce Pvt Ltd is nothing but the bogus accommodation entry provided by Shri Anand Sharma through M/s. Royal Crystal Dealers Pvt. Ltd. The AO has tried to establish the nexus of the loan received by the assessee through the statement of Shri Anand Sharma where he has purported to have provided the alleged entry. Since there is no direct allegation or admission of providing loan by Shri Anand Sharma to the assessee through M/s.Royal Crystal Dealers Pvt. Ltd., then even if there is a possibility of bogus accommodation entry routed through another intermediary company M/s.Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd., it requires a definite link of the transactions from M/s.Royal Crystal Dealers Pvt. Ltd. to M/s.Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. and then the loan to the assessee. Once the chain of transactions and flow of money from one entity to another entity and finally to the assessee has not been established, then the addition made merely on suspicion, how so strong it may be, is not sustainable. On the contrary, when the assessee produced all the relevant record which contains their financial statements, bank accounts statement of loan creditor, return of income, assessment orders framed under section 143(3), confirmation of the loan creditor, then a proper examination could have very well established the link, if any, in providing the accommodation entry from one entity to another and finally to the assessee. However, no such link was found in the documents and financial statements of these companies, rather in the bank account statement of loan creditor M/s. Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. there was no suspicious transaction of receiving any entry or any deposit of an equal amount prior to giving the loan to the assessee. The assessee has paid interest to the creditor, which was duly accepted by the AO as business expenditure. Undisputedly, the assessee has produced the income-tax record of the loan creditor, bank statement, financial statements including Balance Sheet, copy of ROC master data showing the status of loan creditor company as “active”, confirmation of loan given to the assessee. Further, the AO issued summons and also got the summons served through DDIT Kolkata under section 131 of the IT Act which were duly responded by the loan creditor. Except the statement of Shri Anand Sharma and the report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata, the AO has not brought on record any other material to controvert or disprove the documentary evidence produced by the assessee. It is pertinent to note that the loan creditor was assessed to tax and the

81 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

AO completed the assessment under section 143 (3) for various assessment years which are relevant for the assessment year under consideration. The AO in case of loan creditor has not disturbed the transactions of loan given by this company to the assessee. From the financial statements of the loan creditor it is apparent that the loan creditor was having sufficient funds to advance the loan amount to the assessee and once the said financial statements were not disturbed, then the creditworthiness of the loan creditor cannot be doubted when it was accepted in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the IT Act. We further note that the AO insisted the assessee to produce the directors of the loan provider company. The assesee produced the affidavit, and the notices issued by the AO under section 131 and 133(6) of the Act were duly complied with by the creditor. The statement of the Director of M/s. Royal Crystal Dealers Pvt. Ltd. was also recorded by the AO wherein the Director has confirmed the transaction of loan. There are various reports of the DDIT Kolkata which are placed at pages 406 to 422 of the paper book. We find that all these reports are based on the statements recorded during the investigation but no documentary evidence was either gathered or has been referred in these reports. Therefore, even if these reports are to be taken into consideration, these are nothing but narration of the statements of various persons taken during the investigation. It is well settled principle as well as the directions of the CBDT issued under the Circulars that during the course of investigation, the department should concentrate and focus on collecting documentary evidence disclosing undisclosed income instead of obtaining the statement and then support of their claim merely on the basis of the statement. Therefore, the statements recorded by the DDIT Kolkata are also not based on any documentary evidence so as to have an evidentiary value for sustaining the additions made by the AO. The entire report of the Investigation Wing is based on statements recorded during survey and search. Once the assessee has produced the documentary evidence and particularly the financial statements of the loan creditors, their bank account statement, then in the absence of any discrepancy or fault in these financial statements or in the bank account statement to reflect that the transactions in question are nothing but bogus accommodation entries, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable as it is merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and not on any tangible material disclosing the non- genuineness of the transactions. The AO has not disputed the transactions routed through banking channel having sufficient funds which is also supported by the

82 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

financial statements and further the assessments of the loan creditor were completed under section 143(3). The details of loans taken from M/s. Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd., interests credited/paid and repayment of loan amount as well as closing balance are as under :- Name of AY Opening Loan taken Interest Interest Loan Closing Company Balance during the credited in credited repayment/ balance year loan a/c in interest TDS/transfer in during the Paid partner capital year /payable during the year a/c Jalsagar Commerce 10-11 41,298 34,70,40,000 13,96,176 12,56,558 34,21,15,916 51,05,000 Private Ltd Jalsagar Commerce 11-12 51,05,000 77,18,70,000 16,71,599 15,04,439 77,18,37,160 53,05,000 Private Ltd Jalsagar Commerce 12-13 53,05,000 78,95,00,000 1,07,08,434 96,37,591 31,72,80,655 47,85,95,188 Private Ltd Jalsagar Commerce 13-14 47,85,95,188 2,76,31,50,000 0 0 2,97,53,40,000 26,64,05,188 Private Ltd Jalsagar Commerce 14-15 26,64,05,188 97,34,50,000 0 0 1,24,03,55,188 (5,00,000) Private Ltd Jalsagar Commerce 15-16 0 1,34,89,00,000 49,00,600 44,10,540 1,34,93,90,060 0 Private Ltd Jalsagar Commerce 16-17 0 87,11,00,000 1,67,23,178 1,50,50,860 87,27,72,318 0 Private Ltd

All these details were before the AO as all these assessment years were passed by the AO pursuant to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the IT Act. Thus it is clear that for the assessment year 2015-16 there was Nil balance on account of loan taken from M/s. Jalsagar Commerce Pvt. Ltd. and the entire loan was already repaid by the assessee. We further note that it is not the case of repayment of loan after the search action on 2nd July, 2015 but there is a regular repayment of loan for each year as it is evident from the details reproduced above. Therefore, the transactions of taking loan and repayment cannot be treated as bogus once the assessee has been regularly repaying the loan amount and small balance was there at the end of the year. Once there was no balance at the end of the year on the loan account, then the addition cannot be made by treating the loan taken and repaid as bogus transaction. Apart from these facts, the assessee has also made the payment of interest which was also subjected to TDS. This shows the genuineness of the transactions and all these transactions have taken place prior to the date of search and duly recorded in the books of accounts and also subjected to assessment under section 143(3) for some of the assessment years. Therefore, even as per the evidence produced by the assessee, the alleged suspicion of the AO

83 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

was got dispelled and in the absence of any contrary evidence except the statement which is not even a conclusive proof of transaction of bogus entry to the assessee, the additions made by the AO are not sustainable. 11.1. Even otherwise, the assessment order is solely based on the report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata which in turn is nothing but the narration of the statements recorded during the investigation and the AO was having in possession the statement of only Shri Anand Sharma. Therefore, all these proceedings conducted by the Investigation Wing Kolkata were at the back of the assessee and hence the statement which is the foundation of the report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata as well as the assessment order cannot be accepted in the absence of giving an opportunity of cross examination to the assessee. We find that the assessee has insisted for cross examination during the assessment proceedings and further during the appellate proceedings. The ld.CIT(A) even called for a remand report and directed the AO to allow cross examination to the assessee. However, the AO has expressed his inability to allow the assessee cross examination of the witnesses due to the reason that the witnesses belong to Kolkata and it is not possible for AO to make such arrangement. The ld. CIT(A) has finally denied the cross examination to the assessee by giving his finding in para 5.11 at page 188 already reproduced in the earlier part of this order and, therefore, the only reason for denial of cross examination by the ld.CIT(A) is that the statements are so vocal and undeniable that cross examination of such accommodation entry provided by thousands of beneficiaries across India is neither practicable nor viable and therefore uncalled for. We find that the assessee has demanded the cross examination only in respect of the alleged transactions of loans and not for the entire business of the entry providers providing the bogus entries. Undisputedly, the statement of Shri Anand Sharma was recorded by the Investigation Wing Kolkata at the back of the assessee, even the proceedings by the Investigation were conducted at the back of the assessee, therefore, the said statement of Shri Anand Sharma cannot be the sole basis of assessment without giving an opportunity of cross examination to the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (supra) while dealing with the issue of violation of principles of natural justice for not providing the opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied on by the AO has held in para 6 to 9 as under :-

84 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

Once the assessee has disputed the correctness of the statement and wanted to cross examine the witness which was not given by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A), then the orders passed based on such statement are not sustainable in law. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) while dealing with the issue of not providing the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses has held in para 5 to 7 as under :- “5. Secondly, in fact, a rectification application being MA 264/Delhi/2008 under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the

85 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons of natural justice in itself is not fatal enough so as to jeopardize the entire proceedings. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal could have set aside the assessment order with the limited purpose of offering assessee an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Manoj Aggarwal before completing the proceedings." [Emphasis supplied] 6. A reading of the said paragraph (g) makes it clear that the revenue had accepted the findings of the Tribunal on facts as also the position that there had been a violation of principles of natural justice. However, the revenue's plea was that the violation of principles of natural justice was not fatal so as to jeopardize the entire proceedings. The said miscellaneous application was also rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 28-11-2008. 7. In view of the foregoing circumstances, we feel that no interference with the impugned order is called for. The Tribunal has correctly understood the law and applied it to the facts of the case. Once there is a violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as seized material is not provided to an assessee nor is cross- examination of the person on whose statement the Assessing Officer relies upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to a denial of opportunity and, consequently, would be fatal to the proceedings. Following approach adopted by us in SMC Share Brokers Ltd.'s case (supra), we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.”

Thus the Hon’ble High Court has held that once there is a violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor is cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently would be fatal to the proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT, 387 ITR 561 (Bombay) has also considered the issue of not providing opportunity of cross examination in para 11 to 17 as under :-

“11. We have therefore proceeded to hear and decide the matter unassisted by the revenue. In the course of his submissions Mr. Tralshawala had pressed into service inter alia the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Mather & Platt (India) Ltd.(supra) and submitted that merely because a person is not found at an address after several years it cannot be held that he is non existent and that the assessee had discharged his primary onus by identifying the source of the amount paid. The Court observed that once the primary onus is discharged, the onus shifted to the revenue to verify genuineness of the transaction. In the present case no such effort was made by the revenue. We find that in S. Hastimal (supra) the Madras High Court observed that after a lapse of several years the assessee should not be placed upon the rack and called upon to explain not only merely, the origin and source of his capital contribution but the origin of origin and the source of source as well. In yet another case of Bahri Brothers (P) Ltd. (supra) the Division Bench of Patna High Court

86 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

observed that where the assessee upon whom the initial burden lies, produces bank certificate to establish that the transaction was carried out through account payee cheques thus disclosing the identity of the creditors as also the source of income, the burden shifts on to the department and the department cannot add the cash credits to his income from undisclosed source. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nemi Chand Kothari (supra) observed that in order to establish the receipt of a cash credit, the assessee must satisfy three conditions i.e. identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor. In the instant case by virtue of the fact that the transaction was completed by cheque payments, the appellant has contended that it had satisfied all the three tests. 13. In Kishanchand Chellaram (supra) wherein the Supreme Court observed that the revenue authorities had not recorded the statement of the Manager of the bank and it was difficult to appreciate as to why it was not done and why the matter was not probed further by the revenue. 14. The Delhi High Court in Ashwani Gupta (supra)held that once there is a violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as when its seized material was not provided to an assessee nor was he permitted to cross examine a person on whose statement the Assessing Officer relied, it would amount to deficiency, amounting to a denial of opportunity and therefore violation of principles of natural justice. In that case CIT (A) had deleted addition made by the Assessing Officer since the Assessing Officer had failed to provide copies of seized material to the assessee nor had he allowed the assessee to cross-examine the party concerned. The Division Bench held that once there is violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as seized material was not provided to the assessee nor was given opportunity of cross examining the person whose statement was being used against the assessee the order could not be sustained. 15. In Andaman Timber Industries (supra) the Supreme Court found that the Adjudicating Authority had not granted an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the witnesses and the tribunal merely observed that the cross examination of the dealers in that case, could not have brought out any material which would not otherwise be in possession of the appellant-assessee. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and observed that it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross examination and make the remarks such as was done in that case. 16. In the instant case although the appellant assessee has called upon us to draw an inference that the burden shifted to the revenue in the present case once it was established that the payments were made and repaid by cheque we need not hasten and adopt that view after having given our thought to various issues raised and the decisions cited by Mr.Tralshawalla and finding that on a very fundamental aspect, the revenue was not justified in making addition at the time of reassessment without having first given the assessee an opportunity to cross examine the deponent on the statements relied upon by the ACIT. Quite apart from denial of an opportunity of cross examination, the revenue did not even provide the material on the basis of which the department sought to conclude that the loan was a bogus transaction. 17. In our view in the light of the fact that the monies were advanced apparently by the account payee cheque and was repaid vide account payee cheque the least that the revenue should have done was to grant an opportunity to the assessee to meet the case against him by providing the material sought to be used against assessee in arriving before passing the order of reassessment. This not having been done, the denial of

87 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

such opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the reassessment and therefore renders the orders passed by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal vulnerable. In our view the assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross examine the deponents. Despite the request dated 15th February, 1996 seeking an opportunity to cross examine the deponent and furnish the assessee with copies of statement and disclose material, these were denied to him. In this view of the matter we are inclined to allow the appeal on this very issue.” Thus the denial of opportunity to cross examine was considered by the Hon’ble High Court which goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the assessment order passed by the AO not sustainable. The ld. A/R has submitted that Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Shri Prateek Kothari vide order dated 16th December, 2012 in ITA No. 159/JP/2016 has considered this issue in para 2.8 to 2.11 as under :-

“2.8 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The transaction under question relates to unsecured loans taken by the assessee amounting to Rs 1 Crores from M/s Mehul Gems Pvt Ltd during the impunged assessment year and not accepting the said loan transaction as a genuine transaction by the Assessing officer and the resultant addition made under section 68 of the Act. Undisputedly, the primary onus to establish genuineness of the loan transaction is on the assessee. In the instant case, the assessee has provided the necessary explanation, furnished documentary evidence in terms of tax filings, affidavits and confirmation of the Directors, bank statements of the lender, balance sheet of the lender company, and an independent confirmation has also been obtained by the Assessing officer to satisfy the cardinal test of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transaction. However, the Assessing officer has not given any finding in respect of such explanation, documentary evidence as well as independent confirmation. Apparently, the reason for not accepting the same is that the Assessing officer was in receipt of certain information from the investigation wing of the tax department as per which the transaction under consideration is a bogus loan transaction. The said information received from the investigation wing thus overweighed the mind of the Assessing officer. The Assessing officer stated that the primary onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transaction claimed by it and if the investigation done by the department leads to doubt regarding the genuineness of the transactions, it is incumbent on the assessee to produce the parties alongwith necessary documents to establish the genuineness of the transaction. In response, the assessee submitted that Shri Bhanwarlal Jain is not known to him and regarding various incriminating documentary evidences seized during the course of search and statements recorded of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and other persons, he specifically requested the AO to provide copies of such incriminating documents and statement of all various persons

88 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

recorded in this regard and provide an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine such persons. However, the AO didn’t provide to the assessee copies of such incriminating documents and statements of various persons recorded and allow the cross-examination of any of these persons. While doing so, the AO stated that “in his statements, Bhanwarlal Jain had described that they are indulged in providing accommodation entries of bogus unsecured loans and advances through various Benami concerns (70) operated and managed by them. This admission automatically makes all the transactions done by them as mere paper transactions and in these circumstances, further as per the information name and address of assessee and the Benami Concern through which accommodation entry of unsecured loans was provided is appearing in the list of beneficiaries to whom the said Group has provided. This admission is sufficient to reject the contentions of the asseesse.” Further, regarding cross examination, the AO stated that “the right of cross examination is not an absolute right and it depends upon the circumstances of each case and also on the statute concerned. In the present case, no such circumstances are warranted as in the list of beneficiaries to whom accommodation entries were provided by the said group categorically contains the name and address of the assessee. Further the group has categorically admitted to providing of accommodation entries of unsecured loans through various benami concerns.” The AO further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206(SC) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) among others. In this regard, it was submitted by the assessee that if the entries and material are gathered behind the back of the assessee and if the AO proposes to act on such material as he might have gathered as a result of his private enquiries, he must disclose all such material to the assessee and also allow the cross examination and if this is not done, the principles of natural justice stand violated. 2.9 In light of above discussions, in our view, the crux of the issue at hand is that whether the principle of natural justice stand violated in the instant case. In other words, where the AO doesn’t want to accept the explanation of the assessee and the documentation furnished regarding the genuineness of the loan transaction and instead wants to rely upon the information independently received from the investigation wing of the department in respect of investigation carried out at a third party, can the said information be used against the assessee without sharing such information with the assessee and allowing an opportunity to the assessee to examine such information and explain its position especially when the assessee has requested the same to the Assessing officer. 2.10 In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) (Copy at Case Law PB 812-818) has held that “The rule of law on this subject has been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Sinqh where it was stated that while proceeding under sub- section (3) of section 23, the Income-tax Officer, though not bound to rely on evidence produced by the assessee as he considers to be false,

89 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

yet if he proposes to make an estimate in disregard of that evidence, he should in fairness disclose to the assessee the material on which he is going to find that estimate; and that in case he proposes to use against the assessee the result of any private inquiries made by him, he must communicate to the assessee the substance of the information so proposed to be utilized to such an extent as to put the assessee in possession of full particulars of the case he is expected to meet and that he should further give him ample opportunity to meet it.” It was held in that case that “In this case we are of the opinion that the Tribunal violated certain fundamental rules of justice in reaching its conclusions. Firstly, it did not disclose to the assessee what information had been supplied to it by the departmental representative. Next, it did not give any opportunity to the company to rebut the material furnished to it by him, and lastly, it declined to take all the material that the assessee wanted to produce in support of its case. The result is that the assessee had not had a fair hearing.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206 (SC) has held that “the ITO is not bound by any technical rules of the law of evidence. It is open to him to collect material to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry. But, if he desires to use the material so collected, the assessee must be informed about the material and given adequate opportunity to explain it. The statements made by Praveen Jain and group were material on which the IT authorities could act provided the material was disclosed and the assessee had an opportunity to render their explanation in that regard.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (Copy at Case Law PB 585-591) has held that “whether there was any material evidence to justify the findings of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs. 1,07,350 said to have been remitted by Tilokchand from Madras represented the undisclosed income of the assessee. The only evidence on which the Tribunal could rely for the purpose of arriving at this finding was the letter, dated 18-2-1955 said to have been addressed by the manager of the bank to the ITO. Now it is difficult to see how this letter could at all be relied upon by the Tribunal as a material piece of evidence supportive of its finding. In the first place, this letter was not disclosed to the assessee by the ITO and even though the AAC reproduced an extract from it in his order, he did not care to produce it before the assessee or give a copy of it to the assessee. The same position obtained also before the Tribunal and the High Court and it was only when a supplemental statement of the case was called for by this Court by its order, dated 16-8-1979 that, according to the ITO, this letter was traced by him and even then it was not shown by him to the assessee but it was forwarded to the Tribunal and it was for the first time at the hearing before the Tribunal in regard to the preparation of the supplemental statement of the case that this letter was shown to the assessee. It will, therefore, be seen that, even if we assume that this letter was in fact addressed by the manager of the bank to the ITO, no reliance could be placed upon it, since it was not

90 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

shown to the assessee until at the stage of preparation of the supplemental statement of the case and no opportunity to cross examine the manager of the bank could in the circumstances be sought or availed of by the assessee. It is true that the proceedings under the income-tax law are not governed by the strict rules of evidence and, therefore, it might be said that even without calling the manager of the bank in evidence to prove this letter, it could be taken into account as evidence. But before the income-tax authorities could rely upon it, they were bound to produce it before the assessee so that the assessee could controvert the statements contained in it by asking for an opportunity to cross examine the manager of the bank with reference to the statements made by him.” 2.11 In light of above proposition in law and especially taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of C. Vasantlal & Co. (supra) relied upon by the Revenue and which actually supports the case of the assessee, in the instant case, the assessment was completed by the AO relying solely on the information received from the investigation wing, statement recorded u/s 132(4) of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and others, and various incriminating documentary evidence found from the search and seizure carried out by Investigation Wing, Mumbai on the Shri Bhanwarlal Jain group on 03.10.2013. It remains undisputed that the assessee was never provided copies of such incriminating documents and statements of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and various persons and an opportunity to cross examine such persons though he specifically asked for such documents and cross examination. On the other hand, the burden was sought to be shifted on the ITA No. 159/JP/16 The ACIT, Central -2, Jaipur vs. M/s Prateek Kothari, Jaipur 21 assessee by the A.O. It is clear case where the principle of natural justice stand violated and the additions made under section 68 therefore are unsustainable in the eye of law and we hereby delete the same. The order of the ld CIT(A) is accordingly confirmed and the ground of the Revenue is dismissed.”

Thus when the assessee has specifically asked for cross examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the AO, then the denial of the opportunity to cross examine would certainly in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently renders the assessment order based on such statement as not sustainable in law. Hence in view of the facts and circumstances of the case where the assessee has repeatedly requested and demanded the cross examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the AO in the assessment order and further the report of the DDIT Investigation Kolkata is also based on the statement of such person then the denial of cross examination by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A) despite the fact that the assessee was ready to bear the cost of the cross examination of the witnesses is a gross violation of principles of natural justice. Thus the additions made by the AO on the basis of such statement without any tangible

91 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.

material is not sustainable in law and liable to be deleted. Accordingly the addition made by the AO is also deleted on merits apart from the legal issue decided in favour of the assessee.”

Both the parties have fairly admitted that the fact as well as the issue is identical in

both the cases. Therefore, in view of our finding on this issue in the case of Kota

Dall Mill (supra), we decide this issue in favour of the assessee.

the assessee are allowed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 11/01/2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (foØe flag ;kno) (fot; iky jkWo ½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member

Jaipur Dated:- 11/01/2019. Das/

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- The DCIT, Central Circle, Kota. 2. The Respondent – M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 1206(4) /JP/2018) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

92 ITA No. 1206(4)/JP/2018 M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota.