M/S UNIHEALTH CONSULTANCY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 8 (3) (1), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
09.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:
1. Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

a) On the fac the learned A u/s. 143(3) confirmation o by the learned erroneous and b) On the fac the learned provided c creditworthine whom the a documents, i return and ba have been tak c) On the fact the learned A documentary appellant con the details an credits were error in judgm d) On the fac the learned C giving due r evidence prov
CIT(A) should provided at th e) On the fac the learned A position regar
Act, which is of the shareh of which wer course of proc
WITHOUT PR
2. Section 56
a) On the fac the learned A of Rs 4,09,70
the valuation
M/s Unih
ITA ct and in the circumstances of the case a Assessing Officer ("AO") erred in passing of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("ITA") of the addition of 4,20,00,000/- u/s. 68
d Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) d is liable to be quashed.
ct and in the circumstances of the case a AO failed to appreciate that the app complete details regarding the ess, and genuineness of the shareh amounts were received. Copies of th including the profile, identity proof, In ank statements etc. were duly submitted ken into consideration.
t and in the circumstances of the case a AO and learned CIT(A) did not properly c evidence and explanations provide ncerning the cash credits. The failure to ac nd documents provided, which clearly sh genuine and properly explained, is a cl ment.
ct and in the circumstances of the case a CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's addit regard to the appellant's submissions vided during the appellate proceedings. T d have considered the documents and ex he time of the appeal.
t and in the circumstances of the case a AO and learned CIT(A) have ignored the s rding the burden of proof under Section only to establish the identity and credit holders and the genuineness of the trans re duly demonstrated by the appellant ceedings
REJUDICE
6(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
ct and in the circumstances of the case a A grossly erred in confirming the alternati
0,600/- u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the ITA thereb n methodology adopted by the appella health Consultancy Ltd.
2
A No. 4387/MUM/2024
and in law, g the order
), and the 8 of the ITA
("CIT(A)") is and in law, pellant had identity, holder from he relevant
Income Tax and should and in law, consider the ed by the cknowledge ow that the ear case of and in law, tion without s and the The learned xplanations and in law, settled legal n 68 of the tworthiness sactions, all during the and in law, ive addition by rejecting ant for the issuance of s erroneous and b) On the fac the learned C valuation me hindsight to issuance with that valuation time of issuan c) On the fact the learned A appellant's va which was in Rules, 1962. d) On the fac the learned A all necessary of transaction shares. The l consider these e) On the fac the learned C
Hon'ble Bomb case of M/s taxmann.com f) On the fact the learned C
LTD v. ITO [
explicitly over appellant. Th position in th to acknowledg g) On the fac the learned C as established
Delhi High C appellant's in favour of the a 3. Principal
M/s Unih
ITA share and the confirmation of the same b d is liable to be quashed.
ct and in the circumstances of the case a CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's rejec thod. In doing so, the learned AO erre compare projections made at the tim h later events and results. This violates th n should be based on information avail nce, not on subsequent events.
t and in the circumstances of the case a AO and learned CIT(A) erroneously disre aluation based on assumptions and pr n accordance with rule 11UA(2)(b) of the I ct and in the circumstances of the case a AO failed to appreciate that appellant ha y documents, including the valuation rep ns, and supporting evidence, to justify learned AO and learned CIT(A) failed to e documents and the appellant's legitima t and in the circumstances of the case a CIT(A) has completely ignored the deci bay High Court (Juri ictional High Co s. Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd vs. Pr. CIT m 73 (Bombay).
t and in the circumstances of the case a CIT(A)'s has affirmed the decision of Agro P
[2018] 171 ITD 74 (Delhi -Trib.) which rturned by the Hon. Delhi High Court in fa he appellant had duly highlighted the up e submissions, which the learned CIT(A) ge.
ct and in the circumstances of the case a CIT(A)'s has failed to apply the correct lega d by the Hon. juri ictional High Court an Court thereby resulted in an unjust add ncome, ignoring the binding precedents appellant.
of Natural Justice health Consultancy Ltd.
3
A No. 4387/MUM/2024
by CIT(A) is and in law, ction of the d by using me of share he principle lable at the and in law, egarded the resumptions
Income Tax and in law, ad provided port, details the FMV of adequately ate claims.
and in law, ision of the ourt) in the [2018] 92
and in law,
Portfolio (P.) h has been avour of the pdated legal
) has failed and in law, al principles nd the Hon.
dition to the that are in a) On the fac the learned C submissions appellate proc b) On the fac the learned C and documen case. The app legal argumen order, which w c) On the fac the learned acknowledge submissions.
d) On the fac the learned C and due pro claims and e submissions the appellant e) On the fac the order of t the basic proc a fair and th presented by f) On the fact the learned A 56(2)(viib) of t principles. Th section, rathe established.
56(2)(viib) of t
2. Briefly stated, fa was engaged in the medical equipment a year under conside electronically on M/s Unih
ITA ct and in the circumstances of the case a CIT(A) has completely disregarded and i and evidence provided by the appellant ceedings.
ct and in the circumstances of the case a CIT(A) failed to consider the detailed s ntation provided by the appellant in sup pellant had submitted comprehensive ev nts addressing all issues raised in the a were crucial to the determination of the ca t and in the circumstances of the case a CIT(A) did not adequately address the peculiar points raised in the ct and in the circumstances of the case a CIT(A)'s decision is contrary to the principl ocess, as it disregards the appellant's evidentiary support. The failure to cons has resulted in an incorrect and unjust
's income.
t and in the circumstances of the case a the learned CIT(A) has been rendered in cedural requirements of adjudication, whi horough examination of all material and the appellant.
t and in the circumstances of the case a AO erred in making an alternative ad the ITA which is inconsistent with establ he principle of making additions under er than multiple or alternative section Therefore, the alternative addition m the ITA is against the law.
acts of the case are that, the ass e healthcare consultancy servi and hospital management servi ration, the assessee filed ret
30.11.2017
declaring tota health Consultancy Ltd.
4
A No. 4387/MUM/2024
and in law, ignored the t during the and in law, submissions pport of its vidence and assessment ase.
and in law, s or even appellant's and in law, es of equity s legitimate sider these addition to and in law, violation of ich requires arguments and in law, ddition u/s.
lished legal r a specific ns, is well made u/s.
sessee company ices, trading in ces etc. For the turn of income al income at Rs.62,82,408/-. The selected for scrutiny
Income-tax act, 1961
with. During scrutin share capital aggrega capital as well as premium. The equity in two tranches in August, 2016 (prefe noticed valuation rep the equity shares an Rs.799.90 and Rs.20
valuers applying disc vast difference in the as within a short s method employed by the basis of net asse
Accordingly, held the received as taxable
Rs.4,09,70,600/-. A examined the genui section 68 of the A documents filed by th
Act, held the entire s of Rs.4,20,00,000/-
M/s Unih
ITA return of income filed by th y assessment and statutory no 1 (in short ‘the Act’) were issue ny proceedings, the Assessing ating to Rs.4,20,00,000/- comp preference share capital, bot y and preference share capital h
November, 2016 (equity cap erence share capital). The As ports submitted by the assessee d preference shares determinin
02.19 per share respectively fro counting cash flow (DCF) metho e valuation of the equity and p span, the Assessing Officer rej y the assessee and himself valu et value (NAV) method at Rs.1
e balance excess amount of the e u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act
Alternatively, the Ld. Assessin ineness of the entire share c
Act. The Assessing Officer after he assessee for discharging onu share capital including share pr as unexplained cash credit u/s health Consultancy Ltd.
5
A No. 4387/MUM/2024
he assessee was otices under the ed and complied
Officer noticed prising of equity th issued at a had been issued ital share) and ssessing Officer e for the value of ng share price at om two different d. In view of the preference share jected the DCF ed the share on 3.44 per share.
share premium amounting to ng Officer also capital invoking r analysing the us u/s 68 of the remium amount s 68 of the Act.

In the computation t made addition for u amounting to Rs.4
addition for share pr addition for share cap
3. On further app assessee challenging well as addition mad relevant finding of t
Rs.4,09,70,600/- u/s “3. Discus
3.1. The ass
29.12.2019. I assessee had , by issue of 3
This issue wa
Financial Yea by issue of 3,55,00,000/
per share. D basis of the v and as regula submitted tha valuation of a &
Associate
30.11.2015,
(DCF), the val paise, per sh the preference shares, the s
Fair Market
Accountant F the DCF Met shares at Rs.
M/s Unih
ITA to the assessment order, the A unexplained cash credit u/s ,20,00,000/- probably for th remium u/s 56(2)(viib) of the A pital u/s 68 of the Act.
eal, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the the addition made u/s 56(2)(vi e by the AO invoking section 68
the Ld. CIT(A) in relation to s 56(2)(viib) of the Act is reprodu ssions, Reason & Decision:
sessee's Return was assessed u/s. 14
In the assessment order, the AO found d raised preference shares, worth Rs. 65,0
32,500 preference shares @ Rs. 200/- pe as made in August, 2016. However, in t ar, in November, 2016 again, capital was 44,375 nos. of shares, raising capita
-. The value of shares issued, were @ R
During the assessment stage, the AO a value of each share, issued as preferen ar share. The assessee during assessme at the preference shares were issued, as a Chartered Accountant firm named, M/s.
es, where, as per valuation repor applying the Discounted Cash Flow lue of each share was determined for Rs hare. Such valuation was adopted while e shares. Again, before the issue of regula shares of the Company were valued to k
Value, per share, through another C
Firm, M/s. NP Lahoti & Co., who again, thod, determined the Fair Market Valu
799.90, each. 191
health Consultancy Ltd.
6
A No. 4387/MUM/2024
Assessing Officer
68 of the Act he reason that Act subsumed in grounds of the iib) of the Act as 8 of the Act. The the addition of uced as under:
43(3) on that the 00,000/- er share.
the same s raised , al of Rs.
Rs. 800/- asked for nce share ent stage s per the HP Jain rt dated
Method s. 202.19
issue of ar equity know the Chartered adopting ue of the 3.2. In the as made by two valuations dif of the view th occasions we cash flow, tha the variations were far ap valuation repo the assessee, the value of t
(NAV) by ana as on 31/0
conclusion tha
Rs. 13.44, pe the total rais overvaluation such excess v
3.3. Aggrieve present appea submitted tha
Valuation Me
Income Tax available with the NAV Meth their own ch considerable
1st of which w one was of projections w considerable of such incr business plan various count
3.4. The logic before the AO that the actua any bearing claimed that the variants h with the inve backward cal achieved. It independently regarding the M/s Unih
ITA ssessment order, the AO analyzed the va o different valuers, on different dates, w ffered by a great length. Thereafter, the hat the Method adopted by the valuers re flawed, especially, with regard to the p at was adopted for the valuations. He fo s of the actual cash flow and the projectio part. Therefore, the concluded that b orts, based on which new shares were is , were flawed. Thereafter, he himself, ca the shares by adopting Net Asset Value alyzing the assets and liabilities of the C
03/2016. By such Method, he came at the valuation of the shares should no er share. And therefore, he concluded tha sed capital of Rs. 4,20,00,000/-, there n by Rs. 4,09,70,600/- and made an ad valuation, by adopting Sec. 56(2)(viib) of th ed with the order, the assessee institu al. The assessee during the appeal proc at the AO did not have the right to dis ethod, adopted by them as, Rule 11UA
Rules clearly states that there is an h the assessee to adopt, either the DC M hod, for valuation of Market Value of sh hoice. Moreover, it said that there had time gap between the two valuation repo was, on the date of November, 2015 and September, 2016. During the said per were in favour of the assessee. Thus, ther increase in the valuation of the shares. T rease in valuation was also due to t n of the assessee Company, to have bra tries of Africa.
c submitted by the assessee was also s
O. However, the AO refuted such claim an als of FY 2016-17 to FY 2019-20 does with the projections made. Therefore, the valuation reports were not reliable a had been adopted by the assessee only estments taken through private placemen lculation, so that the end results are soug is also not clear whether the value y verified the claims made by the Mana future cash flow prospects.
health Consultancy Ltd.
7
A No. 4387/MUM/2024
aluations where the AO was on both projected ound that ons made both the ssued by alculated e Method
Company, e to the ot exceed at, out of was an ddition of he Act.
uted the ceedings, scard the A of the n option
Method or hares, at d been a orts. The d the 2nd riod, the re was a The basis the new anches in ubmitted nd stated not have the AO at all and to match nts by a ght to be ers have agement,

Vodafone M. Pesa Ltd. - Vs. - PCIT ca ed 01.03.2020, as reported in 92 taxm
Bombay High Court held that, as per sessee has the option to choose either of valuation of DCF Method or NAV Met
Market Value of the shares and the Dep nterfere in the Method of Valuation, take this case, the assessee chose the Valuatio hod and prima facie, the Department ca valuation from DCF to NAV Method, only arently the valuation of the shares, as sulting at a higher value.
r, in the case of TUV Rheinland NIFE v
3160 (Bang.) of 2018 dated 27-2-201
this issue, the Hon'ble Bangalore Inc bunal (ITAT) upheld the order of the Id. A the DCF method of valuation adopted mpany and made addition under sectio
T Act, based on the NAV method. In the he taxpayer-company had issued share any at a premium and it had relied on etermine FMV for justifying the premium amining the valuation report concluded port had solely relied on the values prov ment of the taxpayer-company, whic rrive at the FMV to justify the high prem mputed the FMV of the shares of the ta ng the NAV method and made relevant a upheld by the Id. Commissioner of Inc
T(A)). The Hon'ble ITAT paid heed to the a yer-company that it has the statutory one of the two methods prescribed section 56(2) (viib), one of them being ddressing this argument as well as the co ht of a Id. AO was limited to verify accuracy of the method selected by the ta e Hon'ble ITAT clarified that the Id. AO he right of the taxpayer-company to ch aluation, but after examining the project ned the numbers - its basis, veracity, a ITAT noted that the estimates and pr taxpayer-company were 'a long distan he taxpayer- company, despite repeated r o produce and substantiate the basis f d projections. Thus, in absence of any v ustification for the projections conside health Consultancy Ltd.
8
A No. 4387/MUM/2024
ase, in a mann.com the Rule f the two thod, for partment n by the on under annot not y for the per DCF v. ITO [IT 9] while come-tax
AO, who d by the on 56(2) e facts of es to its n the DC
. The Id.
that the vided by ch were ium. The axpayer- additions, come-tax argument right to for the the DCF ontention fying the axpayer- had not hoose the tions,, he accuracy.
rojections nce from requests, for such valid and ered and adopted in d
Hon'ble ITAT
NAV method.
authority of method adopt
3.7. Again, H v. ITO [2018]
the facts of th or doubt abou make a refere verify the ver where the projections ad it may not b officer to ver
Accordingly, t
AO may be f cannot be ver determine the of the IT Act.
3.8. Respectfu the action of valuation of t addition of R addition mad of the assesse
3.1 Regarding the Rs.4,20,00,000/- in the Ld. CIT(A) is repr
“4.1. As an otherwise, th the shares of he proposed assessee, th explained pro proposed to Unexplained C
4.2. The asse genuine tax assessee disc
M/s Unih
ITA determining FMV under the DCF meth agreed with the decision of the Id. AO t
In doing so, the Hon'ble ITAT thus up the Id. AO to override the choice of v ted under certain circumstances,
Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in case of Agro Portfolio
] 94 taxmann.com 112/171 ITD 74, held his case in the event the Id. AO had any i ut the valuation adopted by the taxpayer, ence to the Valuation Officer of the Depar racity of such valuation. However, in a taxpayer-company fails to substanti dopted to determine the FMV as per DCF e possible even for the Departmental v rify the correctness of such valuation the Hon'ble ITAT added that in such case forced to reject the DCF method, since t rified and instead, could adopt the NAV m e liability of the taxpayer under section 5
fully following the above quoted decision f the AO to be completely justified by the shares through NAV Method and ma
Rs. 4,09,70,600/-, u/s. 56(2)(viib). Theref de by the AO is upheld and the Ground of ee is rejected.”
addition u/s 68 of the Act relation to entire share capital oduced as under:
alternative action, the AO found th he creditworthiness of the so-called inve f the Company is not well-established. T that the amount of share capital raised rough such individual shareholders w operly and therefore, as an alternative a treat the amount of Rs. 4,20,00,0
Cash Credit, u/s. 68 of the Act.
essee submitted that all the shareholde payers and during the assessment st charged its onus by filing complete detai health Consultancy Ltd.
9
A No. 4387/MUM/2024
hod, the to deploy pheld the valuation o (P.) Ltd.
d that in inhibition r, he may rtment to situation iate the F method, valuation adopted.
s, the Id.
the same method to 56(2)(viib) ns, I find adopting aking the efore, the of Appeal t amounting to l, the finding of hat even estors in Therefore, d by the were not action, he
00/- as ers were tage, the ils of the investors. Th such investme
4.3. The exp acceptable. It of the investo independently creditworthine mentioned tha respond to th investment, m other 7 share cases, the inv channelized
Company, wh the sum lent t
4.4. Conside interfere in th proposal of th the AO in t addition of Rs proper judici
4,09,70,600/
case. Howeve a proper add
Appeal of the 4. Before us, the L
Book containing page
4.1 The ground Nos
Act. In the grounds sustaining of the di entire equity and pre during the year un unexplained cash c contention of the Ld.
filed all the documen
M/s Unih
ITA herefore, it should not be penalized by ent as bogus.
planation of the assessee is not co t is true that the assessee had submitted ors. However, it was also found by the y making enquiry with such investors, t ess was at serious doubt. It is als at, out of 10 investors, at least 3 of them he notices of the AO, to explain the source made in the Company's shares. Regard eholders, it was found by the AO that, in vestors received funds from entities, wh as investment in shares of the a hereas, those third-party entities actually to the investors by assessee itself.
ring the facts of the case, I do not he findings of the AO and hold that the al he AO, also holds good. However, as prop the assessment order, I hold the sub s. 4,09,70,600/- to be more logical and ba ial reference. Therefore, the addition
- is held to be the addition, to be mad er, the addition of Rs. 4,20,00,000/- is h dition, for statistical purpose and the G assessee is dismissed.”
Ld. counsel for the assessee ha es 1 to 1297. s. 1(a) to 1(e) are in relation to s s raised, the assessee is aggr isallowance of Rs.4,20,00,000/
eference share capital received nder consideration, which has credit by the lower authorit counsel for the assessee that t nts regarding the identity, credit health Consultancy Ltd.
10
A No. 4387/MUM/2024
treating ompletely d details e AO, by that their o to be m did not e of their ding, the n certain hich were assessee received want to ternative posed by bstantive acked by n of Rs.
e in this eld to be Ground of as filed a Paper section 68 of the rieved with the /- in respect of by the assessee s been held as ties. It is the he assessee has tworthiness and genuineness of the tr
The Ld. counsel su profile, identity pro statement of all the has not discharged h already discharged h submitting the requi justified in sustainin unexplained cash cre
Representative (DR) r
4.2 We have heard the relevant materia dispute are that the a and preference share issued notice u/s 13
information from th explanation was rec information received
Assessing Officer. Th the information filed relevant chart is repr
Name
Ba
Ms. Mayuri Akshay
Parmar
IC
02
M/s Unih
ITA ransaction in respect of share c ubmitted that the assessee ha oof, income-tax return and share applicants but the Ld. A his onus. He submitted that as t his burden of proof u/s 68 of th ired documents, the lower aut ng the addition of the entire s edit. On the other hand, the Ld relied on the order of the lower a rival submissions of the parti als on record. The brief facts q assessee received share capital b es from few subscribers. The A 33(6) of the Act to the subscri hem regarding source of the f ceived from the part of the su d was also not found to be su he Assessing Officer has reprod and deficiency noticed. For read roduced as under:
ank account details
Observations
CICI Bank A/c No.
26101512739
The amount of Rs. 55, been provided by ba
M/s Matushree Mark
M/s Unity Engineerin is a family promot health Consultancy Ltd.
11
A No. 4387/MUM/2024
capital received.
ad already filed bank account
Assessing Officer the assessee has he Act by way of horities are not share capital as d. Departmental authorities.
ies and perused qua the issue in by way of equity
Assessing Officer ibers calling for funds, but only ubscribers. The ufficient by the duced a chart of dy reference the ,00,000/- invested has ank transfers from one keting (Rs. 23,00,000), ng (Rs. 3,00,000)(which ted company of Mr.

Ms. Nikita Punamiya
Un
38
joi
C

Mr.
Rahul
Vimalchand Gandhi
Un
38
Mr. Santosh Mehta
Un
31
th
Me
Je
Ms. Swati Gandhi
Un
38
Ms.
Vasanti
Vimalchand Gandhi
Un
38
M/s Unih
ITA

Akshay Parmar) and M
Akshay Parmar (Rs. 2
transfers from these balance does not app of an investment of the nion Bank, A/c No.
81402010003544
intly held with Mr. V
Gandhi)
The amount of Rs. 50,
02.11.2016 has been one M/s Ratanchand
Pune based jeweller f just one day before th this receipt of money, suggest i creditworthin investment of the c capital account has n support.
nion Bank, A/c no.
81402010905537
Out of the amount of R
381402010905537 in an amount of Rs.
received on the same
Process. Bank state period has not be assessee to verify the remaining amount. Th not been submitted in nion Bank, A/c No.
18005040034242 in e name of M/s ehta
Emporium ewellers
The amount of Rs. 1,0
28.11.2016 by Mr. Sa received back from t by M/s Mehta Em
01.12.2016
and transferred to Mr.
Santosh Mehta on 02
account has not been nion Bank, A/c no.
81402010905538
An amount of Rs. 10
from M/s Dariyav Him
24.08.2016, and one to the assessee com
Besides this amount, suggest creditworthin considered investmen has not been submitte nion Bank, A/c No.
81402010905551
On the same day invested in the ass
15.11.2016, of Rs. 1
cash deposit of Rs. 2, from another account
10,00,000/-. Further, an investment of Rs. 2
the assessee compa from Mr. Vimalchand day. Besides the abov does not show any health Consultancy Ltd.
12
A No. 4387/MUM/2024
Mr.
26,30,000). Besides the accounts, the account pear to be creditworthy e considered sum.
00,000/- invested on n entirely provided by Dalichand (which is a firm) on 01.11.2016 i.e.
he investment. Besides
, the account does not ness of an considered sum. The not been submitted in Rs. 55,00,000/- nvested on 28.10.2016,
5,00,000/- has been day from M/s G Data ement for the earlier en provided by the source of funds for the he capital account has support.
00,00,000/-invested on antosh Mehta has been the assessee company mporium Jewelers on has been further
2.12.2016. The capital submitted in support.
0,00,000/- is received mmatlal Enterprises on e day later transferred mpany on 25.08.2016. the account does not ness of the size of the nt. The capital account ed in support.
that the amount is sessee company, i.e.
10,00,000/- there is a ,00,000 and a transfer t of an amount of Rs.
earlier on 28.10.2016,
20,00,000/- is made in any, which had come d Gandhi on the same ve sources, the account creditworthiness. The Rajendra
Kothari
(NRI)
Ba su
Vimalchand Gandi
Pu
03
Naitik
Chinubhai
Shah
No th ex so inv
Manthan Chinubhai
No as th of 4.1 We find that th assessee had only fil support of creditwo account in case of th
Naitik Chinubhai Sh reply of the notice u/
and also no efforts deficiencies before th were received in th concerns just one o assessee has filed a authorities. We find other financial statem
, a copy of which i
M/s Unih
ITA capital account has n support.
ank statement not ubmitted
In the absence of the nature and source of in the assessee unexplained. The cap been submitted in sup unjab National Bank,
387000100063059
The bank statement explain the source of has the assessee exp reply to the notices is Act.
othing submitted by e assessee to xplain the nature and ource of the vestments
No reply received to th
133(6) of the Act.
othing submitted the ssessee to explain e nature and source f the investments u/s 133(6) of the Act he Assessing Officer has mainly led bank statement but did not orthiness including the copy hree parties namely Shri Vima hah, Manthan Chinubhai Sha
/s 133(6) of the Act was receive were made by the assessee t he Ld. CIT(A). The AO also no he hands of subscribers from r two days before investment.
copy of the documents filed b that the assessee had filed bal ment in the case of Mrs Mayuri is available on page 997-998
health Consultancy Ltd.
13
A No. 4387/MUM/2024
not been submitted in e bank statement, the the investments made company remains pital account has not pport.
t submitted does not the funds invested nor plained the same in the sued u/s 133(6) of the he notice issued to u/s y noted that the t file evidence in of the capital alchand Gandhi, ah. Further, no d in three cases o remove those oted that funds m their family
Before us, the before the lower lance sheet and Akhsya Parmar of paper book.

Similarly, balance sh subscriber Nikita Di
1001O of the paper b in the case of smt. S
1009 of paper book.
case of other subscrib
Evidently, the Assess properly for verificati question arises whet pointed out by the subscribers are filing etc, and all such det be difficult to ascerta and circumstances o justice, we are of the more opportunity to identity, creditworth required so, the Ass deemed fit in the fa examining the share in dispute of addition
Officer for deciding a shall be provided ade no. 1 of appeal is acc the issue of addition
M/s Unih
ITA heet alongwith capital account inesh Punmiya is available on book. Balance sheet along with Santosh V Mehta is available o
Similarly balance sheet and ca bers are available in paper book sing officer has not verified the ion of creditworthiness of the pa ther is it possible to remove th
Assessing Officer? In our opin g their regular return of income, tails have been filed before us, ain their creditworthiness. In v of the case and in the interest o e opinion that assessee should b discharge his onus u/s 68 of th iness and genuineness of the sessing Officer may also carry acts and circumstances of the subscribers. Accordingly, we r n u/s 68 of the Act to the file o afresh. It is needless to mentio equate opportunity of being hea cordingly allowed for statistical u/s 68 of the Act is restored ba health Consultancy Ltd.
14
A No. 4387/MUM/2024
t in the case of page 1001N to capital account on page 1008 to apital account in k filed before us.
documents filed arties. Thus the hose deficiencies nion, when the , balance sheets then it may not view of the facts of substantial of be provided one he Act justifying transaction. If out inquiry as case including estore the issue of the Assessing on that assessee ard. The ground purposes. Since ack to the file of the Ld. Assessing alternative ground ra of the Act at this stag of section 68 of the A for examining liabilit
The ground No. 2 is Assessing Officer for addition u/s 68 of th back to the file of th rendered infructuous
5. In the result, statistical purposes.
Order pronounce (SANDEEP SING
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 29/01/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

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

////

M/s Unih
ITA

Officer, we are not adjudica aised by the assessee for addition ge as first the assessee has to c
Act and if the assessee succeeds ty of section 56(2)(viib) of the A accordingly also restored back r deciding along with the grou he Act. In view of the matter a he Assessing Officer, the groun s,.
the appeal of the assessee ed in the open Court on 29/01/202 GH KARHAIL)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu health Consultancy Ltd.
15
A No. 4387/MUM/2024
ating upon the n u/s 56(2)(viib) cross the barrier s then only need
Act would arise.
to the file of the unds related to already restored nd No. 3 is also is allowed for 25. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai