LUMINANT INVESTMENTS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -40, MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 49, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2006-07, raising following grounds: 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 49, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Depu Mumbai (here an addition u amount receiv The appellant the case and of the Assess as the provisi The appellan circumstances thrusting upo companies for obligation of t cross examina The appellan circumstances adequate op shareholder-c The appellan circumstances the action of oath of the d officers of the directors. The appellan circumstances not to have be record by the the coffers of 2. The CIT(A) treating busin of Explanation The appellant case and in l not have bee same is beyo order (1st rou the action of speculation Explanation Lum ITA ty Commissioner of Income-tax, Centr einafter referred to as the Assessing Offic under section 68 of a sum of Rs 27,78, ved on allotment of equity share capital. ts contend that on the facts and in the circ in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have uph sing Officer in making the impugned addi ions of section 68, in terms, are not applic nts further, contend that on the facts s of the case and in law, the Assessing O n the appellants to produce the directors r cross examination; the appellants subm the Assessing Officer to produce the said ation as they are the witness of the Depa nts further, contend that on the facts s of the case and in law,CIT(A) erred in pportunity for cross examination of companies has been allowed to appellants nts further, contend that on the facts s of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred the Assessing Officer of relying on the directors of shareholder-companies obta e Department instead of himself exami nts further, contend that on the facts s of the case and in law, the impugned a een made inasmuch as there is no eviden e Assessing Officer that monies have em the appellants. erred in confirming the action of Assess ness loss as speculation loss by invoking n to section 73 of the Act. ts contend that on the facts and circums law, the provisions of Explanation to sec en invoked by the Assessing Officer ina nd the scope of directions of the Tribunal und)and hence, CIT(A) has fallen in error the Assessing Officer in treating the bus loss by invoking the pro to section 73. minant Investments Ltd. 2 A No. 4356/MUM/2024 ral Circle 40, cer) in making 50,000, being cumstances of held the action ition inasmuch cable s and in the Officer erred in of the various mit that it is the d directors for artment. s and in the n holding that directors of s. s and in the d in upholding statement on ined by other ining the said s and in the addition ought nce brought on manated from sing Officer in the provisions stances of the ction 73 could asmuch as the l given in their r in upholding siness loss as ovisions of 2. Briefly stated, return of income for declaring total incom assessee was process short ‘the Act’) and notices were issued Assessing Officer (AO appellant-company h crores, including sha subscription from a in Kolkata. These fu discharging the app Mercantile Co-operat was revealed that a of Direct Taxes (CBD the said funds. T Department, Kolkata statements of the companies. A list of s Details of increase in sha

Sr.
Name and 1. JAISHREE
2. KANODIA V
Lum
ITA facts of the case are that the r the year under consideration me at Nil. The return of incom sed u/s 143(1) of the Income-ta was thereafter selected for scru d in the course of such pro
O), in the course of scrutiny, had received an aggregate am are premium of ₹22.22 crores, b number of private companies, unds were ostensibly raised for pellant's liabilities towards M tive Bank Ltd. Upon further special team constituted by the DT) had been tasked with verifyin
The Investigation Wing of t a, undertook detailed inquiry directors of the alleged sh such companies is reproduced a are capital d Address
Qty
COMMOTRADE PVT.LTD.
254000
VYAPAR PVT. LTD.
310000
minant Investments Ltd.
3
A No. 4356/MUM/2024
e assessee filed on 25.11.2006
me filed by the ax Act, 1961 (in utiny. Statutory ceedings. The noted that the mount of ₹27.78
by way of share primarily based the purpose of M/s Mahavpura investigation, it e Central Board ng the source of the Income-tax y and recorded hare subscriber as under:
Total
12700000
15500000

HAR VYAPAR PVT.LTD.
188000
COMMERCE PVT LTD.
346000
ARKETING PVT. LTD.
400000
ROMOTERS & FISCAL PVT. LTD.310000
RADE & INV PVT. LTD.
470000
RADE PVT. LTD.
298000
NVEST PVT. LTD.
190000
XPO PVT. LTD.
100000
N TREXIM PVT. LTD.
170000
P IMPEX PVT. LTD.
50000
URITIES PVT. LTD.
211000
AN1JYA PVT. LTD.
100000
L INVEST & FIN. PVT.LTD.
200000
FIN PVT.LTD
100000
REX PVT.LTD
200000
INTRADE PVT.LTD
100000
L FINVEST PVT.LTD
200000
VYAPAR PVT LTD
20000
APAR PVT LTD
20000
minant Investments Ltd.
4
A No. 4356/MUM/2024
9400000
17300000
20000000
15500000
23500000
14900000
9500000
5000000
8500000
2500000
10550000
5000000
10000000
5000000
10000000
5000000
10000000
1000000
1000000

Lum
ITA

BER PRODUCTS PVT.LTD
20000
TH VYAPAR PVT.LTD.
40000
A VINIMAY PVT.LTD.
20000
MERCIAL PVT.LTD.
70000
RADING & DIST.PVT.LTD
100000
S COMMODITIES PVT.LTD
100000
YAPAAR PVT. LTD.
40000
REE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.
40000
OOLS & MACHINERY P. LTD.
30000
NGENEERING PVT. LTD.
10000
RETE & INFRASTRUCTURE
60000
YMERS PVT. LTD.
40000
OCK & SECURITIES P. LTD.
60000
NSPORT CORPORATION
100000
Impex Pvt. Ltd.
100000
TEXTILES PVT. LTD.
100000
FIN VEST PVT. LTD.
100000
ECOMM PVT. LTD.
80000
FIN PVT. LTD.
80000
DINGS PVT. LTD.
40000
5,557,000
minant Investments Ltd.
5
A No. 4356/MUM/2024
1000000
2000000
1000000
3500000
5000000
5000000
2000000
2000000
1500000
5000000
3000000
2000000
3000000
5000000
5000000
5000000
5000000
4000000
4000000
2000000
0
277,850,000

Net loss as per Profit and Loss A Add : Inadmissible expenses and Increase in Authorised capital
Lum
ITA ew of the above facts and relying upon th di.DIT(Inv.I) Unit-I, Kolkata which reveals t in the assessee's company is the cash he Kolkata based companies from the as s of investing companies, in there sw
131 has stated that they got cash of equ essee and against the same cheques/dem he amount received on account of sha
27,78,50,000 and the same is treated e Income Tax Act. Hence, Rs 27,78,50,0
otal income.”
g upon the findings of the Inve ppellant had routed unaccounte mpanies, ultimately bringing it ba money. The statements of ke company representatives—es ransactions. The appellant, th tedly failed to cross-examine th rs of the subscriber companies d after considering the conduct dition of ₹27.78 crores under Se aid amount as unexplained ca also disallowed the share t detail of the total income comput
:
Account
Rs. (-)
8,34,210
d Income not included

Rs.

4,73,950
minant Investments Ltd.
8
A No. 4356/MUM/2024
he investigation that the source received by the ssessee himself.
worn statement uivalent amount mand draft have re allotment of as cash credit
000 is added to estigation Wing, ed cash through ack in the guise ey individuals—
stablished that hough provided he witnesses or s. Based on the of the assessee, ection 68 of the ash credit. The rading loss of ted by the AO is General Expenses - stamp fees

The business loss Rs. 2,19,910/- speculation loss in view of Expla sources
Add : Income as discussed abov
Total Income
2.4 The appeal pref order dated 20.05.2
Appellate Tribunal (I set aside the matter, documents and state the appellant an effe under Section 68 of t
ITA No. 3925/Mum/
the impugned order under:
“3.1 The prin assessee per assessment o lacs as unex whether the terms of the s
3.2 It would case, which a on 25.11.200
by filing of t subsequent t verification p observed by proceedings t tune of Rs. 25
share allotme was found t
Lum
ITA

Rs.

1,40,350
Rs (-)
2,19,910
- is treated as speculation loss and allowed to be lanation below Sec. 73 and no set off is allowed o ve para 4.9

Rs.27.78.50.000

Rs.27,78,50,000
ferred before the Ld. CIT(A) was 2009. Upon further appeal, th
ITAT), vide order in ITA No. 39
, directing the CIT(A) to (i) furn ements relied upon by the AO, ctive opportunity to discharge t the Act. The relevant finding of 2009 has been reproduced by t
. For ready reference, same is cipal issue arising in the instant case, a r its ground no.1 is the maintainability of share application money in the sum of xplained income u/s.68 of the Act. In assessee has been able to prove the said provision of the Act?
be relevant to reproduce the backgroun are not disputed. The assessee filed its re
06, disclosing loss at Rs.8.34 lacs. This the financial statements on 05.10.2007
to its processing u/s. 143(1), was s rocedure by the issue of notice u/s. 1
the Assessing Officer (A.O.) in the that the assessee had factual repayment
5.6 crores to the bank. The same was do ent money in the sum of Rs. 2778.5 cror to have been received by way of shar minant Investments Ltd.
9
A No. 4356/MUM/2024
carried forward as on income from other s dismissed vide he Income Tax
25/Mum/2009, ish copies of all and (ii) provide the burden cast f the Tribunal in the Ld. CIT(A) in s reproduced as agitated by the in law of the of Rs. 2778.50
other words, said credit in nd facts of the turn of income was followed
7. The return, ubject to the 143(2). It was e assessment t of loan to the one by raising res. The same re application money toward a premium of being 41 in n way of applic order. The sa private limited subject matte the departme purpose by th the A.O. fro
04.12.2006, 2
the course of followed the was found d credibility. Th
68, and confi documents in banking chan
3.3 The furni and source o which is to b creditor) and essentially a and examinin obtaining in th of the Act is a to satisfactor admitted fact assessee, and to its nature a of the assesse sum is found applicable to expounded an of decisions, w viz. Govindar
Khan Moham
Banerjee & O
CIT [1977] 10
[2007] 291 IT the Revenue.
source the-inc be treated a Mudaliar (sup
Lum
ITA d 555.7 lacs shares of the face value of f Rs.40/- each. The names of the sha number, and the corresponding amount cation money, are listed at pgs.2 to 4 of th ame, with an exception of an odd or t d companies. The said transaction had er of detailed investigation by the investig ent, a special team having been const he CBDT. The reports in the matter wer om AddI. DIT (Investigation Unit 1),
29.12.2006, 23.03.2007 and 24.04.200
the assessment proceedings. In fine, the money trail up to fourth layer, i.e., whe deposited in the bank accounts of per he amount was accordingly assessed as irmed on the same basis; the assessee o n relation to the amounts being received nnel and toward share allotment.
ishing of a satisfactory explanation as of a credit appearing in the books of be on the parameters of identity and ca d the genuineness (of the credit tra matter of fact. We may, however, befo ng the facts of the case, advert to the he matter as clarified by the hon'ble cour a rule of evidence casting an obligation on rily explain a credit in its books of t of the receipt of the sum is an evidenc d in the absence of it being satisfactorily and source, the same is liable to deemed ee for the relevant year, i.e., the year in w d so credited. This capsules the trite o the share application money or s nd elucidated by the apex court in and o which are considered as locus classicus o rajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 8
mmad Hanif vs. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1 (S
Ors. vs. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC), Rosha
07 ITR 938 (SC); and CIT vs. P Mohan
TR 278 (SC), most of which have been r
The Revenue is under no obligation to sh come was derived by the assessee and s its concealed income. As stated in pra) (at pg.810) the same is as under:
minant Investments Ltd.
10
A No. 4356/MUM/2024
Rs. 10/- each are applicants, ts received by he assessment two, are from in fact been a gation wing of tituted for the re received by Kolkata on 07, i.e., during e Revenue had ereat the cash rsons with no s income u/s.
only producing d through the to the nature the assessee, apacity (of the ansaction), is ore delineating legal position rts. Section 68
n the assessee account. The ce against the y explained as as the income which the said law, equally share capital, over a number on the subject,
807 (SC); Kale
SC), Sreelekha an Di Hatti vs.
nakala & Ors.
relied upon by how from what why it should
Govindarajalu

"Now the con failed to estab a matter of la or accrued d
Department t income was income. In the erroneous. W treated as inc circumstances shown in the Govindaswam to give explan gift of Rs. 80
business of w explanations to the Income income. There assessee fail certain amou
Income-tax Of are of an ass
Tribunal came the case. The these appeals
Reference in case of CIT v
(SC) and CIT v
3.4 Over the r the nature of evidence or identity, capa assessed, wh application m the decision
[2008] 299 IT is in respect
Leasing and and (3) Lovel after examin unchanged, i involved, to b law, much les
With regard t
Lum
ITA ntention of the appellant is that assuming blish the case put forward by him, it does aw that the amounts in question were in uring the previous year, that it was th to adduce evidence to show from wha derived and why it should be treated e absence of such evidence, it is argued,
We are unable to agree. Whether a rec come or not, must depend very largely on s of each case. In the present case the e account books of a firm of which the a my Mudaliar were partners. When he wa nation he put forward two explanations
0,000 and the other being receipt of Rs.
which he claimed to be the real owner. Wh were rejected, as they have been, it was e-tax Officer to hold that the income must re is ample authority for the position th ls to prove satisfactorily the source a unt of cash received during the account fficer is entitled to draw the inference th sessable nature. The conclusion to which e appears to us to be amply warranted b ere is no ground for interfering with tha s are accordingly dismissed with costs".
this regard may also be made to the d v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969
vs. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674. recent years there has been some doubt the duty cast on the Revenue in the face incomplete information, i.e., qua the p acity and genuineness being brought here the credit is in respect of share money following the decision by the Delhi reported at CIT vs. Divine Leasing &
TR 268 (Del), dismissing the Revenue's ap of three appeals, i.e., in the case of CIT
Finance Limited (2) General Exports and ly Exports P. Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268 (D ing the legal position, which it clarifi i.e., with regard to the legal principles be essentially a matter of fact, so that n ss substantial question of law arose for to the issue of discharge or otherwise of minant Investments Ltd.
11
A No. 4356/MUM/2024
g that he had s not follow as come received he duty of the at source the as concealed the finding is ceipt is to be n the facts and e receipts are appellant and as called upon s, one being a . 42,000 from hen both these s clearly upon t be concealed hat where an and nature of ting year, the hat the receipt h the Appellate by the facts of at finding, and decision in the 9] 72 ITR 194
with regard to of inadequate parameters of forth by the capital/share i high court in Finance Ltd.
appeals, which T vs. (1) Divine d Credits Ltd.
Del). The court ied to remain and positions no question of consideration.
the onus cast on the asses observation of “There canno practice of masquerade company mus the preponde complexity (co the Revenue's case of a pub to know every worth of eac however, mai all the inform documents. In not be the s walking the t
The burden o assessee if th of any subscr thorough inve any wrong or suspicions an income of the We may her generally rece making it dif assessee- rec observed by t however a p substantially shareholders.
unarguably b persons) as largely illiqui assessment o therefore, on reference to it more. Further at a premium inference of a assessee-com
Further on, th court in CIT v
Lum
ITA ssee it will be relevant to reproduce f the court, which is as under:
ot be two opinions on the aspect that t conversion of unaccounted money or channel of investment in the share st be firmly excoriated by the Revenue. E rance of evidence indicates absence of c omplicity) of the assessed it should not be s insistence that it should prove the ne blic issue, the company concerned canno ry detail pertaining to the identity as we ch of its Subscribers. The company mu intain and make available to the Officer fo mation contained in the statutory shar n the case of private placement the legal same. A delicate balance must be main tightrope of sections 68 and 69 of the In of proof can seldom be discharged to th he Assessing Officer harbours doubts of ription he is empowered, nay duty boun estigations. But if the Assessing Officer fa r illegal dealings, he cannot obdurately nd treat the subscribed capital as the company."
re emphasis that the share applicati eived through the public offer route by pu ifficult for discharging the burden of cipient company in terms of section 68
the hon'ble court. The assessee in the in private limited company, in which the interested and which can have a max
. Persons including companies, investing by known persons (or company's con nobody would otherwise risk its capit id with an unknown entity and, furth of the business potential and prospec n the assessee-debtor, which would o ts facts and circumstances of the case, is r, that the shares have been issued in th m of 400% of the face value further cor a complete and intimate knowledge of the mpany.
he matter has been examined in depth b vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2
minant Investments Ltd.
12
A No. 4356/MUM/2024
the relevant the pernicious through the e capital of a Equally, where culpability and e harassed by egative. In the ot be expected ell as financial ust, Assessing for his perusal, re application regime would ntained while ncome-tax Act.
he hilt by the the legitimacy nd, to carryout ails to unearth adhere to his e undisclosed ion money is ublic company, proof on the to the hilt, as nstant case is, public is not ximum of 50%
therein would ntrol by such tal - which is her, made on ts. The onus, only be with without much e instant case rroborates the e affairs of the by the hon'ble
2012] 342 ITR

169 (Del), re earlier decisio private limited and duty cas
"Section 68 o application m burden is on t the satisfact ingredients, applicants, th genuineness o
Held, that th
Assessing Off regarding the The assessee section. The T and had take factual aspec
It should have the entire evi the investigat the bank acco denial thereof of the case."
3.5 Coming observation o confirmation material that a deliberated money trail, s the departme followed upto which extend
Revenue per part of the as with the stat account or th the investors inasmuch as Lum
ITA viving the case law in the matter, an ons in proper prospective, the same is in d company and brings out the full scope t both on the assessee and the Revenue s followed by a series of a decision by t
Titan Securities Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 184
nstruction P. Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 197 ( r the sake of clarity the observations b ater case:
of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies equ monies received by an assessee and, the assessee to prove the nature and sou tion of the Assessing Officer. It in namely, the proof regarding identity heir creditworthiness to purchase the sh of the transaction as a whole.
here was enough material in the poss fficer which warranted explanation from e nature and source of the share applic e had done little to discharge its burd
Tribunal had failed to keep in view the b en a rather simplistic view of the matter cts and surrounding circumstances presen e dealt with the case in a holistic manne idence relied upon and having regard to tion wing, the manner in which entries ounts of the three companies, the stateme f by AKK, as also the other surrounding to the facts of the instant case, we over the assessee as even, as much as letters from the creditors. The Revenue it impugning the transaction as being in f and or casted scheme of routing of cash since unearth by the efforts of the Investig ent (also refer paras 3.2 & 3.4). The mo o the point where the cash has been d ds to the forth tier, as detail transaction the reports of its investigation wing, and ssessment order as Annexure 1 thereto. T tement of the persons providing access he deposit of their cash, as well as by th companies, admitting to the transaction they are only providing accommodation minant Investments Ltd.
13
A No. 4356/MUM/2024
d placing the n respect of a e of the nature in the matter.
the said court,
4 (Del) and CIT
(Del). We may by the hon'ble ually to share therefore, the urce thereof, to nvolves there of the share hares and the session of the the assessee cation monies.
den under the roader picture r, ignoring the nt in the case.
er dealing with o the report of were made in ent of PKJ and circumstances find the first not furnished has sufficient fact a result of h, tracking the gation wing of ney has been deposited and n- wise by the d which forms
This is coupled to their bank he directors of n beign bogus n entries for a commission, t has been no fully entitle to regard to the the pernicious
Divine Leasin money, by ma
The assessee production of The same has sufficient opp course of the deliberately e conduct need investigation much better p information i information te how, we won confirmations by it. True, th matter relyin
However, firs secondly, the furnishes an information in documentary sheet of the facts of unea be appreciate be itself suffic misconceived credit appear rule of eviden credit in act re
3.6 At the sa the matter in assessee. Th before the Id definitely am present its ca asked for the not even furn on the finding relevant and Lum
ITA the rate of which has also been stated.
rebut of those statements. The Revenue o rely on them and in fact, entitled serio e genuineness of the said credits which s scheme, as held by the hon'ble court ng & Finance Ltd. (supra) of conversion of asquerading his share capital of a compa e has done little except raising a legal f the said directors or deponents for cross s been disregarded by the Revenue on th portunity is toward the same were grant proceedings before the investigation wi evaded by the assessee on pretext or th ds to be seriously depreciated inasm wing being fully in position of the fact a position to investigate the facts, both in in their position as well as in terms ends to be dissipated with the lapse of der could the assessee this legal plea ina s as afore-noted from the creditors have n he A.O. has not created any further inves ng solely on the findings by the inves stly, as afore-stated he is fully entitled question of the same would only where ny material controverting the said n the position of the Revenue. The furn evidences, viz. the share application mo creditor companies is of little evidentia arth and late bear by the Revenue. Rathe ed that if the evidence by way of book e cient to prove cash credits, section 68 wo and redundant inasmuch as it is only ring in the books of account. As clarified nce casting the burden of proof to exhibit epresents a genuine credit transaction.
me time, however, we also find that, rat the position of the A.O. has not been p he assessee has raised a specific plea i d. CIT(A) (vide its ground no.2). This is mounts to a denial of opportunity to the ase. Though, in our view, the assessee same, the primary onus being on it, and ished the confirmations. However, the Re gs of its investigation wing which though it is fully entitled to do so. It was incu minant Investments Ltd.
14
A No. 4356/MUM/2024
Further, there e is, therefore, us doubt with in fact reveal in the case of f unaccounted ny.
l plea of non- s examination.
he ground that ted during the ng and which he other. This much as the nd rather in a n terms of the s of time, as time. Further, asmuch as the not been filled stigation in the tigation wing.
to do so, and e the assessee incriminating nishing of the oney, balance- l value in the er, it needs to entries were to uld itself to be based on the earlier, it is a t that the said ther strangely, rovided to the in this regard material and e assessee to ought to have with it having evenue relying h no doubt are umbent in the fairness of p materials to aspect of the 2.5 In compliance, appellant between J relevant documents representation. Desp fresh explanation no furnished. Instead, submissions earlier p the factual matrix o relevant detail is repr
“5. In view o appellate proc given multipl detailed below
S. No.
Dat
1. 07/
2. 04/
3. 08/
4. 15/
5. 22/
6. 24/
2.6 In view of non-c
CIT(A) provided one assessee sought adj
Thereafter, the asses which were filed befo
Lum
ITA procedure and principle of justice to c the assessee. The Id. CIT(A) has not d matter. We decide accordingly."
the ld. CIT(A) issued multiple
January 2019 and May 2024, s and affording sufficient o pite this, the appellant neither r availed the opportunity to reb it merely reiterated the placed before the Tribunal, with or the findings of the Investiga roduced as under:
of the above directions of Hon’ble ITAT ceedings were initiated. Thereafter, the a le opportunities of hearing by issuing w:- te of Notice
Date of Hear
/01/2019
17/01/2019
/03/2024
07/03/2024
/03/2024
14/03/2024
/03/2024
21/03/2024
/03/2024
28/03/2024
/04/2024
01/05/2024
compliance on the part of the a more final opportunity on 08.0
journment for compiling of th ssee filed only photocopies of t re the Tribunal in ITA No. 3925
minant Investments Ltd.
15
A No. 4356/MUM/2024
confront those dealt with this e notices to the furnishing the opportunity for r submitted any but the evidence photocopies of hout addressing ation Wing. The T, the present appellant was g notices, as ring assessee, the Ld.
05.2024 but the he Paper Book.
the submissions
/Mum/2009. 2.7 The Ld. CIT(A) the AO and which CIT(A), in his imp continued non-coop addition made unde appellant had failed the identity, creditwo applicants. He dism observing as under:
“9. It was no CIT(Appeals)
07/11/2008, contended tha natural justic assessment o various comp in compliance statements w course of hea present its ca thereafter, the why the a Rs.27,85,50,0
amount rece premium), as same to its to CIT(Appeals) response to t final opportun that they we adjournment
20/06/2024. photo copy of that these su
ITAT as per th a summary application m
Assessing Off
Lum
ITA provided material which was i was relied upon while making pugned order dated 20.06.20
eration of the assessee and er Section 68 of the Act, obs to discharge the statutory onus orthiness, and genuineness of th missed the grounds of appeal o oticed that in the appeal filed in Form against the assessment order u/s.
vide Ground No.2, the appellant ha at the Assessing Officer had violated the ce in not furnishing, before passing t order, the various statements on oath o anies to whom shares had been allotted e with the directions of Hon'ble ITAT, c were provided to the AR of the appella aring on 21.03.2024 so as to enable the ase. However, despite three notices of h e appellant did not file any written subm action of the AO in treating the 000/-, found credited in its books of eived on allotment of its shares (inc unexplained cash credit and consequen otal income u/s.68 of the Act, upheld b vide order dated 20/05/2009, is no the notice of hearing issued on 02/05/2
nity, the appellant sought adjournment o ere in the process of compiling the pap was granted and the hearing was However, even then, the appellant has f the submissions filed before Hon'ble IT ubmissions had been filed by the appella he directions of Hon'ble Bench on 11/08/
of the evidences in respect of the rec monies as submitted by the appella fficer and the CIT(A). Thus, the appellant minant Investments Ltd.
16
A No. 4356/MUM/2024
in possession of g addition. The 024, noted the confirmed the erving that the s of establishing he alleged share of the assessee,
No. 35 before
143(3) dated ad, inter alia, e principles of the impugned of directors of d. Accordingly, copies of such ant during the e appellant to hearing issued missions as to amount of f accounts as cluding share tly adding the by the learned t justified. In 2024 granting on the ground per book. The re- fixed for filed only the TAT. It is seen ant before the /2017 and are ceipt of share ant with the t has failed to bring any new being given fr present proce
10. It would b
Hon'ble ITAT, sufficient opp
However, the opportunities present its ca different view his order dat against the a 3. Despite notifyin appeared before us n on behalf of the ass assessee was not int proceeded to hear ap the argument of the L
4. We find that th basis of the thorough
Wing under a specia director of the share returned cash agains
The assessee was du those persons but a providing multiple o discharge his burden genuineness of the subscriber parties.
Lum
ITA w facts/material on record to support its resh and adequate opportunity during the edings as per the directions of the Hon'bl be seen from the above discussion that a relevant material was provided to the portunities were also provided to th e appellant has chosen not to avail of granted to it as per the directions of H ase. Under the circumstances, I see no rea w from the one taken by my predecessor o ted 20/05/2009. The issue is, accordi appellant.”
ng by way of registered post nor any application for adjourn sessee, therefore, we were of th terested in prosecuting the app ppeal ex-parte qua the assesse
Ld. DR and perusal of the mater he Assessing Officer has made h investigation carried out by t al team constituted of the CBD e subscriber companies deposed st the cheque issued to the ass uly provided the opportunity to assessee did not avail the oppo opportunity. However, assesse n u/s 68 of the Act of establish e transaction and creditwort
The Ld. CIT(A) has recorde minant Investments Ltd.
17
A No. 4356/MUM/2024
s case, despite e course of the le ITAT.
as directed by appellant and he appellant.
of these fresh
Hon'ble ITAT to ason to take a on the issue in ingly, decided neither anyone nment was filed he opinion that peal, Hence, we ee, after hearing rial on record.
addition on the he Investigation
DT wherein the d that they had sessee company.
o cross-examine ortunity despite ee also did not ing the identity, thiness of the ed that all the statements and oth
Officer were duly pr explanation was filed filed earlier before
Tribunal(supra) in t explained genuinene share premium receiv
4.1 Upon careful con passed by the lower the Department wa statements and docu to discharge the initi the Act. The settled
Supreme Court in CI
Kale Khan Mohamm the burden lies squa explanation regardin books, failing which income. The Tribuna
68 is a rule of evide three components—i also rightly distingui
CIT v. Lovely Expo inapplicable to the fa
Lum
ITA er documents relied upon by rovided to the assessee and d d before him except the submiss the Tribunal and were re the order. Before us, also as ss of the share subscription m ved.
nsideration, we find no infirmit r authorities. The investigation as comprehensive and based umentation. The appellant failed ial burden placed upon it unde d position in law, as enuncia
IT v. P. Mohanakala [(2007) 29
mad Hanif v. CIT [(1963) 50 ITR arely upon the assessee to offe ng the nature and source of a such amount may be deemed a al, in its earlier order, rightly he ence and mandates the assess identity, creditworthiness, and ished the decision of the Delhi orts Pvt. Ltd. [(2008) 299 ITR acts of the present case, particu minant Investments Ltd.
18
A No. 4356/MUM/2024
y the Assessing despite no fresh sion which were ejected by the sessee has not money including ty in the orders undertaken by d on concrete d at every stage er Section 68 of ated by Hon’ble
1 ITR 278 (SC)],
R 1 (SC)], is that er a satisfactory any credit in its as the assessee’s eld that Section see to prove all genuineness. It i High Court in R 268 (Del)] as ularly in light of the appellant being a evidence against it. T failure to produce investigation, and the demonstrate that the failed to meet the evid the circumstances, w learned CIT(A) in con the Act. The findings record and are in c
Hon’ble Supreme Cou accordingly dismissed
5. In the result, th
Order pronoun (SANDEEP SING
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 31/07/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Lum
ITA a closely held company and th
The non-furnishing of confirma e directors, the evasive co e absence of any credible rebutt e assessee has not acted in goo dentiary threshold prescribed u we see no error in the order nfirming the addition made und s are consistent with the mater conformity with the principles urt. The grounds of appeal of t d.
he appeal of the assessee is dism nced in the open Court on 31/
S
GH KARHAIL)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA minant Investments Ltd.
19
A No. 4356/MUM/2024
he overwhelming ation letters, the onduct during tal cumulatively od faith and has under the law. In passed by the der Section 68 of rial available on s laid down by the assessee are missed.
/07/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Lum
ITA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu minant Investments Ltd.
20
A No. 4356/MUM/2024
R, gistrar) umbai