Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI D BENCH : MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M :
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 20-12-2018 passed by Ld CIT(A)-5, Kolkata and it relates to the Assessment Year (AY.) 2012-13. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.116.50 crores relating to share capital and share premium made by the AO as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.
The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee was previously known as Jay Jyoti India P Ltd. It filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring loss of Rs.41.56 lakhs. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has raised share capital of Rs.6,21,40,500/- along with share premium of Rs.110,28,34,500/- aggregating to Rs.116,49,75,000/-. The above said amounts have been received from 35 subscribers out of which 28 subscribers were from Kolkatta and the remaining 7 subscribers were from Mumbai. All the share subscribers are private limited companies. 2.1. Out of 7 subscribers from Mumbai, the AO examined the details furnished by the assessee in respect of following four companies:- (a) Newtown Mercantiles P Ltd (b) Intellect Tradelink P Ltd (c) Clubside Dealcom P Ltd (d) Momentum Agency P Ltd. The AO noticed that three companies mentioned above had common directors and common auditor. There were cross holding and cross investment of funds. He also noticed that these companies have declared losses. The AO issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act, but they were returned un-served with the remarks “left”, “unclaimed”, “Not known” etc. The AO has also observed that the inspector of income tax also could not find these companies in the given addresses.
2.2. Out of 28 Kolkata based subscribers, the AO issued commission u/s 131(1)(d) of the Act to the DDIT (Inv), Kolkata on 19-03-2015 in order to enquire 18 subscribers. In response to the commission so issued, the DDIT (Inv), Kolkata reported that no such entities exist in the given addresses. According to the assessee, the report of DDIT (Inv) was received by the AO within six days, i..e, on or before 25-03-2015, since the AO issued summons to the director of the assessee on that date.
2.3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO recorded a statement u/s 131 of the Act from Shri Sharad Kumar Darak, the director of the assessee company. From the replies given by him, the AO observed that the assessee company does not have necessary strength to receive huge premium, that too when it is making losses. He also expressed the view that the subscribers to the share capital of the assessee are paper companies with no means to invest such kind of substantial sums. He also noticed that there were circulation of funds between related concerns and accordingly took the view that the transactions do not appear to be carried in the normal course of business. Accordingly, the AO concluded as under:- “From the specific observations as pointed out above, it is evident that the sudden spurt in the Balance Sheet of the company by way of monies received under the garb of „share capital‟, „share premium‟ & „share application money‟ is nothing but the money earned by the assessee from undisclosed sources kept away from the incidence of tax and was now round tripped and brought into the books by way of adopting this circuitous method of share capital through fictitious investors.” Accordingly, the AO concluded that the assessee was unable to prove the share application money & security premium satisfactorily and further held that the assessee has obtained the aforesaid monies to the tune of Rs.116.49 crores from bogus entry providers. Accordingly, he assessed the above said amount as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.
In the appellate proceedings, the Ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition by placing reliance on various case laws. Hence the assessee is aggrieved.
We heard the parties and perused the record. In the instant case, the addition has been made u/s 68 of the Act, wherein cash credits, which are essentially capital receipts, are deemed to be revenue receipts by legal fiction, if the assessee fails to prove the nature and source of cash credits. “Nature of cash credit” would mean that the assessee is required to show that it is not of revenue nature. In order to prove the sources, the assessee should discharge initial burden to prove the cash credits placed upon his shoulders of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, i.e.., the assessee is required to prove three main ingredients, viz., the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transactions and the credit worthiness of the creditor. If the assessee discharges the initial burden, then the burden would shift to the shoulders of the assessing officer, i.e., it is the responsibility of the AO to disprove the claim of the assessee by bringing evidences on record.
We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the present case. We noticed that the assessee has received share capital & share premium from 35 persons, which consisted of 7 from Mumbai and 28 from Kolkatta. We noticed that the AO analysed the details of four subscribers located in Mumbai. The AO issued commission for examining 18 subscriber companies located in Kolkata. It is pertinent to note that the AO has not given the name of those 18 companies for which the commission was issued to DDIT (Inv), Kolkata. However, on the basis of enquiry conducted for 4 subscribers located in Mumbai and limited enquiry conducted in respect of 18 subscribers located in Kolkata, the AO has concluded that all the 35 companies are paper companies and accordingly assessed the share capital & share premium received from all the 35 companies as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.
With regard to the 18 companies located in Kolkata also, the DDIT (Inv) has simply reported that they were not traceable at the given addresses, meaning thereby, no enquiry was conducted in respect of those 18 companies also. Hence, in effect, the AO has examined the financial statements of only four companies, (out of the 35 companies from whom the assessee had received share capital & share premium) and concluded that the entire share capital and share premium remained unexplained.
7. In our considered view, the AO could not have made addition in respect of share capital and share premium received from remaining 13 companies (35 less 22) for which no enquiry was conducted at all by the AO. With regard to the 18 companies located in Kolkata also, the only deficiency noticed by the AO through the report given by the DDIT (Inv) Kolkata is that they are not traceable, which would mean, the details furnished by the assessee with regard to the 18 companies were also not examined by the AO. In our view, the AO could not have made addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of these 18 companies (whose names are not known) also.
8. The Ld A.R submitted the details of time line relating to the impugned assessment proceedings. (a) The AO issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 21-08-2013. (b) The notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 30-07-2014 and thereafter again on 23-02-2015. This would mean that the assessment proceedings commenced effectively on 23-02- 2015. (c) Thereafter, the AO issued commission to DDIT (Inv), Kolkatta on 19-03-2015 and the commission’s report was received on 25-03-2015.
(d) The statement of director was recorded on 30th March, 2015 and 31st March, 2015 till late evening. (e) The assessment was time barring on 31st March, 2015 and the assessment order was claimed to have been passed on the very same day, even though the statement of director was recorded till late evening. From the time line stated above, it can be noticed that the assessment proceedings were effectively conducted between 19-03-2015 and 31.3.2015, even though the second 142(1) was issued on 23.02.2015. It is also the allegation of the assessee that the assessment order would not have left the hands of the AO on 31.3.2015, being the limitation day. However, the Ld A.R submitted that this contention of the assessee may be left open. In any case, the above said time lime would show that the AO has not properly and effectively examined the documents furnished by the assessee to discharge the burden placed upon its shoulders. He has made the impugned addition on the basis of examination of only four subscribers, which proves that the AO has mostly relied upon the report given by the Investigation wing in respect of alleged accommodation entry providers.
Be that as it may, we notice all the 35 share subscribers are private limited companies only. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has furnished following documents in respect of each of the 35 subscribers:- (a) PAN number of subscriber companies. (b) Master data/Certificate of incorporation He submitted that the above said two documents prove the identity of the subscriber companies. (c) Balance sheet relating to AY 2012-13 of all the subscribers. (d) Income tax return copies filed by them for AY 2012-13.
He submitted that the above documents prove the credit worthiness of the subscribers. (e) Resolution passed by the subscribers. (f) Share Application forms and allotment letters (g) their bank statements He submitted that the above documents prove the genuineness of transactions. Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has proved the entire cash credits received in the form of Share capital and share premium, as per the requirements of sec.68 of the Act.
We shall examine as to whether the AO has discharged the burden shifted to his shoulders in this case. We earlier noticed that the AO has examined the financial statements of only four subscribers. In respect of those subscribers also, he has expressed doubt on their credit worthiness for the reason that they were declaring low profits or loss. In our view, for proving credit worthiness, what is required to be seen is whether those subscribers were having funds with them at the time when they subscribed the shares of the assessee company. Those funds need not always be own funds and it may include borrowed funds. The purpose of requiring the assessee to prove the credit worthiness of the creditor is to ensure that the assessee has not brought his own accounted money through the creditor. In the instant case, the assessee has furnished details of net worth of the subscriber companies and the amount invested by them in the assessee company. The details are extracted below:-
A perusal of the above table would show that all the 34 companies mentioned in the table were having sufficient net worth and the investment made in these companies formed minor portion of their respective net worth.
The AO has pointed out certain deficiencies in order to conclude that the assessee has not discharged the burden placed upon it u/s 68 of the Act. We may refer to certain case laws which explain the legal propositions relating to the assessment of cash credits u/s 68 of the Act.
(a) We notice that the AO has alleged that the assessee has routed its own money through these subscribers. However, no supporting document was brought on record to support this view. In the case of CIT vs. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi), it has been held that the additional burden is on the revenue to show that even if the share applicants did not have means to make the investment and the investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee.
(b) In the case of CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd (2010)(194 Taxman 43)(Delhi), it has been held as under:-
“In a case where assessee proves identity of creditors/share applicants by either furnishing their PAN numbers or income tax assessment numbers and shows genuineness of transaction by showing money in his books either by account payee cheque or draft or by any other mode, then onus of proof would shift to revenue and just because creditors/share applicants could not be found at address given, it would not give revenue right to invoke sec. 68.”
(c) In the assessment order, the AO has also observed that these creditors did not respond to the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. The co-ordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal has held in the case of Prabhatam Investment P Ltd vs. ACIT (ITA Nos. 2523 to 2525/Del/2015 dated 17-04-2017) that the fact that the share holders did not respond to section 133(6) notices does not warrant an adverse inference.
The case laws discussed above would show that the various deficiencies cited by the assessing officer to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act were not sufficient.
We noticed that the AO did not find fault with any of the documents furnished by the assessee to prove the three main ingredients. We noticed that the assessee also discharged the initial burden placed upon him u/s 68 of the Act by furnishing all the documents in order to prove the three main ingredients. The AO and the DDIT(Inv.), Kolkatta has stated that the subscribers were not found at their given addresses. In this regard, the assessee has submitted that the subscribers might have changed the addresses. The assessee has also stated that it has furnished the PAN details and also their assessment details. Hence the AO and DDIT (Inv) could have identified the subscribers through their internal sources. However, they did not take any action in order to identify and compel the creditors using their statutory powers to appear before them. At this stage, we feel it apposite to refer to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs, Orissa Corporation Pvt Ltd (159 ITR 78)(SC), wherein it was held as under:-
“In this case the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees. Their index number was in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the assessee, did not pursue the matter further. The Revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were credit-worthy or were such who could advance the alleged loans. There was no effort made to pursue the so called alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the assessee could not do any further. In the premises, if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had discharged the burden that lay on him then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion is based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arises.”
In our view, the above said decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court will apply to the facts of the present case.
We noticed that the assessment was effectively conducted for a few days only. Hence, there was no proper enquiry conducted by the AO and it appears that the AO was mainly guided by the report of the investigation wing with regard to the paper companies providing accommodation entries. The question that arises is whether the Assessing Officer could have made addition under section 68 of the Act by relying upon report of investigation wing or the statement given by the alleged accommodation entry providers. It is opposite to refer to the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Moraj Realty Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.708 & 709/Mum/2019 dated 08-12-2020), wherein the decision was rendered by following the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. It was held as under :- “17. Moreover, except for relying on the statement of VVB the Assessing Officer has not done any inquiry himself except for referring to a notice issued under section 133(6) in A.Y. 2009-10 only. The learned counsel of the assessee has challenged the very veracity of this observation. He has submitted that assessee has asked for the copy of the said notice issued under RTI Act. In response it was replied that copies thereof are not available. Hence, this shows that even the so called inquiry by the Assessing Officer was done in case of only one party for A.Y. 2009-10 and the veracity of which is itself in doubt. 18. We find ourselves in agreement with the submissions of the assessee‟s counsel. We note that except for the statement of the entry operator which was also retracted the addition made by the authorities below is devoid of cogent material. In this regard we note that in similar circumstances honourable Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1433 of 2014 dated 5.7.2017) held as under :- “The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share money had not appeared before the Assessing Officer and the summons could not be served on the addresses given as they were not traced and in respect of some of the parties who had appeared, it was observed that just before issuance of cheques, the amount was deposited in their account. The Tribunal has considered that the Assessee has produced on record the documents to establish the genuineness of the party such as PAN of all the creditors along with the confirmation, their bank statements showing payment of share application money. It was also observed by the Tribunal that the Assessee has also produced the entire record regarding issuance of shares i.e. allotment of shares to these parties, their share application forms, allotment letters and share certificates, so also the books of account. The balance sheet and profit and loss account of these persons discloses that these persons had sufficient funds in their accounts for investing in the shares of the Assessee. In view of these voluminous documentary evidence, only because those persons had not appeared before the Assessing Officer would not negate the case of the Assessee. The judgment in case of Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. (supra) would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
Similarly honourable Bombay High Court in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held as under :-
We find that the proviso to Section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus it would be effective only from the Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the subject Assessment Year. In fact, before the Tribunal, it was not even the case of the Revenue that Section 68 of the Act as in force during the subject years has to be read/understood as though the proviso added subsequently effective only from 1st April, 2013 was its normal meaning. The Parliament did not introduce to proviso to Section 68 of the Act with retrospective effect nor does the proviso so introduced states that it was introduced “for removal of doubts” or that it is “declaratory”. Therefore it is not open to give it retrospective effect, by proceeding on the basis that the addition of the proviso to Section 68 of the Act is immaterial and does not change the interpretation of Section 68 of the Act both before and after the adding of the proviso. In any view of the matter the three essential tests while confirming the pre proviso Section 68 of the Act laid down by the Courts namely the genuineness of the transaction, identity and the capacity of the investor have all been examined by the impugned order of the Tribunal and on facts it was found satisfied. (ii) Further it was a submission on behalf of the Revenue that such large amount of share premium gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders i.e. they are bogus. The Apex Court in CIT v/s. Lovely Exports (P)Ltd. 317 ITR 218 in the context to the preamended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee’s income as unexplained cash credit.
Similarly Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Apeak Infotech (3971 ITR 148) has held as under :-
“Amendment to Section 68 of the Act by the addition of proviso thereto took place with effect from 1st April, 2013. Therefore, it was not applicable for the subject Assessment year 2012-13, So for as the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act was concerned, the same cannot be invoked in this case, as evidence was led by the Respondents- Assessee before the Assessing Officer with regard to identity, capacity of the investor as well as the genuineness of the investment Therefore, admittedly, the Assessing Officer did not invoke Section 68 of the Act to bring the share premium to tax. Similarly, the CIT(A), on consideration of facts, found that Section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked, in view of the above, it was likely that the Revenue may have taken an informed decision not urge the issue of Section 68 of the Act before the Tribunal. High Court may also point out that decision of High Court in Major Metals Ltd. vs. Union of India, 359 ITR 450 proceeded on its own facts to uphold the invocation of Section 68 of the Act by the Settlement Commission. In the above case, the Settlement Commission arrived at a finding of fact that the subscribers re shares of the Assessee - Company were not creditworthy in as much as they did not have financial standing which would enable them to make an investment of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- at premium of Rs. 990 per share. It was this finding of the fact arrived at by the Settlement Commission which was not disturbed by High Court in its writ-jurisdiction. In the present case the person who have subscribed to the share and paid share premium have admittedly made statement on oath before the Assessing Officer as recorded by the Tribunal. No finding in this case has been given by the Authorities that shareholder/share applicants were unidentifiable or bogus. High Court find that the impugned order of the Tribunal upheld the view of the CIT(A) to hold that share premium is capital receipt and therefore, cannot be taxed as Income. This conclusion was reached by the impugned order following the decision of this Court in Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and of the Apex Court in M/s G.S. Homes and Hotel P. Ltd. (supra). In both the above cases the Court has held that the amount received on issue of share capital including premium are on capital account and cannot be considered to be income. It was further pertinent to note that the definition of income as provided under Section 2(24) of the Act at the relevant time did not define as income any consideration received for issue of share in excess of its fair market value. This came into the statute only with effect from 1st April, 2013 and thus, would have, no application to the share premium received by the Respondent - Assesses in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2012 - 2013. Similarly, the amendment to Section 68 of the Act by addition of proviso was made subsequent to previous year relevant to the subject Assessment year 2012-13 and cannot be invoked. It may be pointed out that High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Gangadeep Infrastructure (P) ltd (Income Tax Appeal No. 1613 of 2014 decided in 20 March 2017) has while refusing to entertain a question with regard to Section 68 of the Act has held that the proviso to Section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from 1 April 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from Assessment year 2013-14. In view of the above, Question No .B as proposed also does not give rise any substantial question of law as it is an issue concluded by the decision of High Court in M/s Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and in the Apex Court in M/s G.S. Homes & Hotels P. Ltd. (supra). Thus not entertained. ”
Accordingly in the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent in our considered opinion assessee has given all the necessary details required for establishment of identity creditworthiness and genuineness under extant provisions of section 68 of the IT Act. The onus cast upon the assessee stands discharged. The addition by invoking amended provisions of section 68 of the Act which are not applicable for the assessment year is not sustainable.”
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd (397 ITR 136)(Bom) that the addition u/s 68 could not be made once the assessee had produced the documents to prove the cash credits. It was further held that non-appearance of the share subscriber before the AO will not change this position.
It is also apt to refer to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Paradise Inland Shipping (P) Ltd (2017)(84 taxmann.com 58)(Bom). In this case, it was allegation of the Revenue that the assessee has received share application money from fictitious companies. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- 5. We have given our thoughtful considerations to the rival contentions of the learned Counsel and we have also gone through the records. The basic contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants revolves upon the stand taken by the Appellants whether the shareholders who have invested in the shares of the Respondents are fictitious or not. In this connection, the Respondents in support of their stand about the genuineness of the transaction entered into with such Companies has produced voluminous documents which, inter alia, have been noted at Para 3 of the Judgment of the CIT Appeals which reads thus : "The assessment is completed without rebutting the 550 page documents which are unflinching records of the companies. The list of documents submitted on 09.03.2015 are as follows :
1.
Sony Financial Services Ltd. - CIN U74899DL1995PLC068362- Date of Registration 09/05/1995 (a) Memorandum of Association and Article of Association (b) Certificate of Incorporation (c) Certificate of Commencement of Business (d) Acknowledgment of the Return of Income AY 08-09 (e) Affidavit of the Director confirming the investment (f) Application for allotment of shares (g) Photocopy of the share certificate (h) Audited account and Directors report thereon including balance sheet, Profit and Loss Account and schedules for the year ended 31.03.2009. (i) Audited account and Directors report thereon including balance sheet, Profit and Loss Account and schedules for the year ended 31.03.2010 (j) The Bank Statement highlighting receipt of the amount by way of RTGS. (k) Banks certificate certifying the receipt of the amount through Banking channels."
6. On going through the documents which have been produced which are basically from the public offices, which maintain the records of the Companies. The documents also include assessment Orders for last three preceding years of such Companies.
The Appellants have failed to explain as to how such Companies have been assessed though according to them such Companies are not existing and are fictitious companies. Besides the documents also included the registration of the Company which discloses the registered address of such Companies. There is no material on record produced by the Appellants which could rebut the documents produced by the Respondents herein. In such circumstances, the finding of fact arrived at by the authorities below which are based on documentary evidence on record cannot be said to be perverse. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants was unable to point out that any of such findings arrived at by the authorities below were on the basis of misleading of evidence or failure to examine any material documents whilst coming to such conclusions. Under the guise of the substantial question of law, this Court in an Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act cannot re-appreciate the evidence to come to any contrary evidence. Considering that the authorities have rendered the findings of facts based on documents which have not been disputed, we find that there are no substantial question of law which arises in the present Appeal for consideration.
The Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. (supra), has observed at Para 13 thus : "13. In this case the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the revenue that the said creditors were income- tax assessees. Their index number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart from issuing notices under S. 131 at the instance of the assessee, did not pursue the matter further. The revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were credit-worthy or were such who could advance the alleged loans. There was no effort made to pursue the so called alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the assessee could not do anything further. In the premises, if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee has discharged the burden that lay on him then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion is based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arises."
9. This Court in the Judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, have come to the conclusion that once the Assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of such Companies, the burden would shift on the Revenue-Appellants herein to establish their case. In the present case, the Appellants are seeking to rely upon the statements recorded of two persons who have admittedly not been subjected to cross examination. In such circumstances, the question of remanding the matter for re-examination of such persons, would not at all be justified. The Assessing Officer, if he so desired, ought to have allowed the Assessee to cross examine such persons in case the statements were to be relied upon in such proceedings. Apart from that, the voluminous
documents produced by the Respondents cannot be discarded merely on the basis of two individuals who have given their statements contrary to such public documents. 10. We find no infirmity in the findings arrived at by the ITAT as well as CIT Appeals on the contentions raised by the Appellants-Revenue in the present case and, as such, the question of interference by this Court in the present proceedings under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act would not at all be justified.”
In our view, the above said decisions rendered by the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court and the co-ordinate bench supports the case of the assessee. As noticed earlier that the assessee has discharged the burden placed on its shoulders by providing all the documents required in order to prove the identity of the creditor, credit worthiness of the creditor and genuineness of transactions. On the contrary, the AO has not discharged the burden shifted to his shoulders by disproving those documents. Instead, he has taken adverse view on the basis of incomplete enquiry, incorrect appreciation of financial statements of four companies and based on the general allegations made in the report of the investigation report. Accordingly, following the above said decision, we hold that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.