THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GTC OILFIELDS SERVICES P. LTD, AHMEDABAD

आदेश/O R D E R

PER BENCH : These eight appeals preferred by the Revenue in the case of three assessees involving seven assessment years, i.e. AYs 2009-10 to 2015-16, are directed against the following orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6/11, Ahmedabad (“CIT(A)” in short):-

Appeal IT(SS)A/ITA No. AY Against the Date of Order Passed by CIT(A)’s Order IT(SS)A No. 314/Ahd/2019 2009-10 CIT(A)-6, Abad 22.03.2019 IT(SS)A No. 315/Ahd/2019 2010-11 CIT(A)-6, Abad 26.03.2019 IT(SS)A No. 316/Ahd/2019 2014-15 CIT(A)-6, Abad 22.03.2 2015-16 CIT(A)-6, Abad 22.03.2019 ITA(SS)A No. 317/Ahd/2019 2013-14 CIT(A)-6, Abad 26.03.2019 ITA(SS)A No.111/Ahd/2018 2014-15 CIT(A)-11, Abad 08.02.2018 ITA(SS)A No. 117/Ahd/2018 2011-12 CIT(A)-6, Abad 01.02.2018 ITA(SS)A No. 118/Ahd/2018 2012-13 CIT(A)-6, Abad 01.02.2018

GTC Oilfield Services Pvt. Ltd. AY Investor Company Share Capital Share Premium Total Amount 2009-10 Baghbaan Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 19,15,000.00 5,55,35,000.00 5,74,50,000.00 2010-11 Baghbaan Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 9,87,650.00 2,86,41,850.00 2,96,29,500.00 2010-11 Yamini Marketing Pvt Ltd. 66,650.00 19,32,850.00 19,99,500.00 2014-15 Ambika Commodeal P. Ltd. 18,85,000.00 5,18,37,500.00 5,37,22,500.00 2015-16 Ambika Commodeal P. Ltd. 10,52,000.00 2,91,37,500.00 3,01,89,500.00 Total 17,29,91,000.00

IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 3 Globe Ecologistics Pvt. Ltd. - 2011-12 Westwll Exports Pvt Ltd 17,57,000.00 7,60,43,000.00 7,78,00,000.00 2011-12 Yamini Marketing Pvt Ltd. 8,95,000.00 3,86,05,000.00 3,95,00,000.00 2012-13 Westwll Exports Pvt Ltd 21,26,000.00 10,41,74,000.00 10,63,00,000.00 2012-13 Yamini Marketing Pvt Ltd. 11,93,000.00 5,84,57,000.00 5,96,50,000.00 2013-14 Ambika Commodeal P. Ltd. 68,90,000.00 11,36,85,000.00 12,05,75,000.00 Total 40,38,25,000.00 GTC Petrotech Pvt. Ltd. 2014-15 Ambika Commodeal P. Ltd. 10,75,000.00 2,04,25,000.00 2,15,00,000.00 Total 2,15,00,000.00

i) The investor companies were mainly based at Kolkata and did not have any substantial business activities; ii) The profit/loss declared by the investor companies in the returns of income filed for the relevant years was nominal; iii) The Directors of the investor companies were family members of the main persons of the Globe Group and even the shares of the investor companies were mainly held by the family members of the main persons of the Globe Group; iv) The investor companies had no capacity or source to generate the funds which were claimed to be invested in the assessee-companies; v) The funds invested in the share capital/share premium in the assessee- companies were claimed to be raised by the investor companies by way of issue of shares to multiple entities and these multiple entities were operated by professional entry operators as per their statements recorded under Section 131(1A)/132(4) of the Act, wherein they

IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 4 accepted of having given accommodation entries in the form of share capital/share premium and received commission at the rate of 0.25%; vi) In his statement recorded during the course of search on 23.01.2015, Shri Basant R. Agarwal, Director in Globe Group Company and a key person of the group could not satisfactorily reply to the questions asking him to provide the relevant details; vii) Although Shri Basant R. Agarwal disagreed with the statement of the investor companies regarding the provision of accommodation entries, he declined to cross-examine the deponents;

IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 5 6. Yamini Marketing has paid first installment of tax of Rs 4,45,00,000/-on 28.11.2016. Therefore, the income declared by Yamini Marketing P Ltd justifies the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness on their part, as per provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

7. The company Westwell Exports P Ltd has made investment in share capital and premium of M./s. GTC Oilfield Services P ltd in AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 of Rs 8,25,50,000/-.

8. Against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for the years under consideration, appeals were preferred by all the three assessee-companies before the learned CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), detailed submission was made on behalf of the assessee-companies in support of their case that the additions made by the Assessing Officer by treating the share capital and share premium received during the years under consideration as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act

IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 7 as well as the additions made under Section 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure allegedly incurred on commission paid for obtaining accommodation entries were not sustainable. The said submission was forwarded by the learned CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer who in turn submitted a remand report to the learned CIT(A) offering his comments on the submission made by the assessee-companies. When the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer was confronted by the learned CIT(A) to the assessee-companies, the latter filed a rejoinder in writing offering clarification in respect of each and every comment offered by the Assessing Officer. After taking into consideration the entire material available before him including the submission made by the assessee- companies, remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer and the rejoinder filed by the assessee-companies, the learned CIT(A) found merit in the case of the assessee(s) on the issue under consideration and deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer by treating the share capital and share premium amounts received by the assessee-companies as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act for the following reasons given in his impugned order dated 22.03.2019 passed in the case of GTC Oilfields Services P. Ltd. for AY 2009-10 which are similar to the reasons given by the learned CIT(A) in other orders which are impugned in these appeals:-

“3.5 I have carefully gone through the facts mentioned in the assessment order and remand report of the AO and the submission and rejoinder of the appellant. The AR of the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant has furnished all necessary evidences and documents provided by investor under IDS-2016 to justify source of share capital and share premium to prove genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the investor in assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble CBDT also issued Circulars and Notifications that no enquiry would be made by the Income-tax Department in respect of sources of undisclosed income or investment in movable or immovable property declared in a valid declaration made in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme, though the A.O. has not taken IDS in the true spirit and rejected the evidences issued by Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 8 under the scheme (IDS-2016) brought by Govt. of India and regulated by CBDT through its Revenue Officers and added share capital and share premium duly covered under IDS by the investor Baghbaan Marketing Pvt. Ltd, merely to make double addition as well as to raise high demands. 3.6 The Id. A.R. further submitted that identical issue of Share capital and share premium is also decided by my predecessor in this case in Appeals of AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-6/379&378 / 2016-17 vide order dated 01.02.2018. In these orders additions u/s. 68 were deleted as the share capital and share premium were offered by investor company in IDS- 2016, where it is held that: "Thus, from the above, it is seen that identity of the creditors i.e. Westwell and Yamini who have invested in share capital and share premium in the appellant company is established. Further, since both the investors have declared share capital and share premium invested in the appellant company as part of undisclosed income declared under IDS, 2016 and paid due taxes on the same, creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of transactions is established. Hence, all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act are satisfied i.e. identity and creditworthiness of investors and genuineness of transaction are established. Hence the AO was not justified in treating share capital and share premium of Rs.21,00,44,500/- received from Westwell and Yamini as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 27,00,44,500/- is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed." 3.7 I have carefully gone through the facts mentioned in the assessment order, remand report of the AO, the submission and rejoinder of the appellant on the addition of share capital and share premium of Rs. 5,74,50,000/- received from Baghbaan Marketing Pvt. Ltd. From assessment order and submission, it is seen that share capital and share premium of GTC Oilfield Services Pvt. Ltd is offered by investor Baghbaan Marketing Pvt. Ltd as its undisclosed income under IDS-2016. The A.O. has not accepted the IDS stating that assessee failed to produce concrete and material evidence in order to prove nexus of income and its application and the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the depositor. 3.7.1 From submissions of appellant, before the undersigned and in assessment proceedings following facts and findings emerges:- (i) Baghbaan Marketing Pvt. Ltd offered its undisclosed income under Income Declaration Scheme (IDS), 2016 and demonstrated that the undisclosed income is invested in Share capital and share premium of appellant company.

IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 9

(ii) In assessment proceedings, the appellant filed copies of IDS-2016 Form no. 1 and annexure of Baghbaan Marketing Pvt Ltd showing undisclosed income offered in IDS, which was invested in share capital and share premium of GTC Oilfield Services Pvt. Ltd. (iii) Baghbaan Marketing Pvt. Ltd, investor filed IDS Forms with The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad, who is also Pr. CIT of the appellant, as the appellant is assessed by Dy. CIT, Central Circle 1(4), Ahmedabad. (iv) The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad issued Form no. 2 (for payment of taxes) to investor Baghbaan Marketing Pvt. Ltd on 14-10-2016, acknowledging declaration in respect of IDS-2016, after completion of formalities, including confirmation from AO that no proceedings are pending in the case of Baghbaan Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (v) The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad issued Certificate of Declaration under IDS-2016 in Form no. 4 to investor Baghbaan Marketing Pvt. Ltd on 14-09-2017, which is issued when payment of taxes, surcharge and penalty are made by applicant. (vi) The appellant furnished IDS Forms/Declaration in Annexure-B to Form no.1 of IDS-2016 of investor Baghbaan Marketing Pvt. Ltd, which demonstrates that undisclosed income has been investment in share capital and share premium in GTC Oilfield Services Pvt. Ltd. In this connection the appellant pointed out instruction issued by CBDT in connection to IDS- 2016, where in Instruction No. 12 of 2016 dated 11-11-2016 in Para no. 3, it is mentioned that: 3. Queries have also been received as to how an Assessing Officer should address the cases where an assessee claims that the issue under pending assessment proceeding is covered by declaration made under the Scheme. In this context, it is clarified that in cases where the assessee claims that an issue under an assessment proceeding has nexus with the declaration filed under the Scheme, the Assessing Officer may obtain a written undertaking along with relevant documentary evidence from the assessee about the issues and quantum of amount covered under the declaration having bearing on the pending assessment proceeding. (vii) Thus, the appellant has demonstrated direct nexus between income disclosed under IDS-2016 by investor Baghbaan Marketing Pvt Ltd and its application in share capital and share premium of appellant company GTC Oilfield Services Pvt. Ltd. (viii) The A. R. of the appellant vehemently argued that the vary purpose of IDS-2016 was to offer undisclosed income or unaccounted investment of past

IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 10 years, which were not shown to income tax department and no taxes were paid. In this case, the investor has made declaration under IDS-2016 and shown the investment in share capital and share premium, which establish the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the depositor. 3.7.2 The A.R. of the appellant further vehemently argued that in view of the Circulars issued by CBDT on Income Declaration Scheme 2016, the Income Tax Department cannot make any enquiry in respect of sources of income declared in IDS or investment in movable or immovable property declared in a valid declaration as per provisions of the IDS Scheme. The A.R, pointed out following Questions and Answers from various circulars issued by CBDT in connection to IDS-2016, the same are reproduced hereunder:- (a) The CBDT in Circular no. 25 dated 30-06-2016 in Q. No. 5 Clarified that: Question No. 5: Where a valid declaration is made after making valuation as per the provisions of the Scheme read with IDS Rules and tax, surcharge & penalty as specified in the Scheme have been paid, whether the department will make any enquiry in respect of sources of income, payment of tax, surcharge and penalty? Answer: No. (b) The CBDT in Circular no. 27 dated 14-07-2016 in Q. No. 6 Clarified that: Question No. 6: With reference to question No. 5 issued vide Circular No. 25 of 2016, wherein it has been stated that the department will not make any enquiry in respect of sources of income, payment of tax, surcharge and penalty, it may be clarified that whether the payment under the Scheme can be made out of undisclosed income without including the same in the income declared, thereby bringing down the effective rate of tax, surcharge and penalty payable under the Scheme to around 31 percent? Answer: It is clarified that the intent of the clarification issued vide question No. 5 of Circular No. 25 of 2016 was limited to conduct of enquiry by the Department..................... (c) The CBDT in Circular no. 29 dated 18-08-2016 in Q. No. 1 Clarified that: Question No. 1: In certain cases, the undisclosed income might be reflected in creditors or other liability which may be fictitious. Whether in such cases, the assessee can disclose only such fictitious liability, as it may not be possible to link it to any specific asset or investment?

IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 11 Answer: In a situation where loans, creditors, advances received, share capital, payables etc. are disclosed in the audited balance sheet but are fictitious in nature, and such liabilities cannot be directly linked to acquisition of a particular asset in the balance sheet, then such fictitious liabilities can be disclosed under the Scheme as such without linking the same with the investment in any specific asset...................... (d) The CBDT in Circular no. 32 dated 01-09-2016 in Para 2 Clarified that: 2. ..................... any document is found as a proof for having already filed a declaration under the Scheme, including acknowledgement issued by the Income-tax Department for having filed a declaration, no enquiry would be made by the Income-tax Department in respect of sources of undisclosed income or investment in movable or immovable property declared in a valid declaration made in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. 3.7.3 Considering above facts of the case and Circulars of CBDT in connection to Income Declaration Scheme 2016 and appellate orders of my predecessor CIT(A)-6, in Appeals of AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-6/379&378 / 2016-17 vide order dated 01.02.2018, I am of considered view that Baghbaan Marketing Pvt. Ltd has made declaration under IDS-2016 and offered undisclosed income as invested in share capital and share premium of Rs. 5,74,50,000/- in M/s. GTC Oilfield Services Pvt. Ltd. There is no ambiguity of nexus between income declared under IDS- 2016 and its application in share capital and share premium in appellant company. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad has issued IDS Certificate in Form no. 4 to Baghbaan Marketing Pvt Ltd., who is also Pr. CIT of the appellant company. Thus, from the above facts and evidences, the identity of creditors i.e. Baghbaan Marketing Pvt. Ltd, who has invested in share capital and share premium in appellant company is established. The investment in share capital and share premium is from income declared under IDS-2016 and due taxes are paid by applicant, which proves creditworthiness of investor and genuineness of transaction. The A.O. of the appellant and the AO for the company which has declared the IDS-2016 applicant are one, the facts and evidences were placed before him in assessment proceedings, hence, the A.O. was not justified in making addition of share capital and share premium of Rs.5,74,50,000/-. Accordingly, addition of Rs.5,74,50,000/- made u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.”

9. The learned CIT(A) also deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the case of all the three assessee-companies for the years under IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 12 consideration on account of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act being the commission allegedly paid by the assessee-companies @ 0.25% for obtaining accommodation entries in the form of share capital and share premium for the following reasons which are similar in all cases:- “4.5. I have carefully gone through the facts mentioned in the assessment order and remind report of the AO and the submission and rejoinder of the appellant. The Id. A. R. further submitted that identical issue of commission payments u/s.69C, treated by AO as unexplained expenditure is also decided by my predecessor in this case in Appeals of AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-6/379&378/2016-17 vide order dated 01.02.2018. In these orders additions u/s.69C were deleted as the same was offered by Investor Company in IDS-2016, where it is held that: "In Para 7.3 above, in respect of share capital and share premium of Rs. 21,00,44,500/-, it has been held that identity and creditworthiness of investor from whom the share capital and share premium has been received and genuineness of transaction are established. Accordingly, addition on account of treating share capital and share premium of Rs.21,00,44,500/- as unexplained cash credit has been deleted. In view of this there is no justification for addition of Rs.12,60,267/- on account of commission paid for taking accommodation entries for share capital and share premium of Rs. 21,00,44, 500/-. Accordingly, addition of Rs.12,60,267/- is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed." 4.7 I have gone through the facts of the case, findings of Assessing Officer in assessment order and comments in remand report and submissions of the appellant. The A.O. has made addition of Rs. 3,44,700/- commission as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the I.T. Act. Such commission is estimated @0.6% for obtaining entries of share capital /premium. The facts have been discussed in detail in Ground no. 3 above the share capital / premium received by the appellant from Baghbaan Marketing Pvt Ltd. The share capital / premium and commission is declared by investor Baghbaan Marketing Pvt. Ltd in IDS-2016. Share capital and share premium has been allowed in the above ground of appeal. This ground of appeal being consequential in nature and covered under IDS-2016. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 3,44,700/- made u/s. 69C of the I.T. Act is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.”

10. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal.

IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 13

11. In Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the Revenue which are identical in all these appeals except the variation of amounts in dispute, the common issue involved is relating to the deletion by the learned CIT(A) of the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act by treating the share capital and share premium amounts as unexplained cash credit while the common issue involved in Ground No.5 relates to the deletion by the learned CIT(A) of the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act on account of commission allegedly paid by the assessee for obtaining accommodation entries in the form of share capital and share premium by treating the same as unexplained expenditure which is mainly consequential to the main issue raised in Ground Nos. 1 to 4.

12. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, has submitted that both the common issues involved in these appeals of the Revenue are squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal rendered in one of the cases of the assessees namely M/s. GTC Oilfield Services Pvt. Ltd. for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 rendered vide its common order dated 31.03.2022 passed in IT(SS)A No. 115-116/Ahd/2018. He has submitted that similar additions under Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained share capital and share premium amounts and under Section 69C on account of unexplained expenditure incurred on payment of commission for allegedly obtaining accommodation entries were made by the Assessing Officer in the case of M/s. GTC Oilfield Services Pvt. Ltd. for the intervening years, i.e. AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13, involving similar facts and circumstances. He has submitted that the said additions made by the Assessing Officer, however, were deleted by the learned CIT(A) and the order of the learned CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on both the issues were upheld by the Tribunal vide order dated 31.03.2022. He has also IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 14 placed on record a copy of the said order of the Tribunal and the perusal of the same shows that both the issues relating to the deletion by the learned CIT(A) of the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 and 69C of the Act which are similar to the commons issues involved in all these appeals of the Revenue have been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee for the following reasons given in paragraph Nos. 11 to 11.4 of its order:- “11. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly the assessee has received share capital and premium on share capital for Rs. 2,06,00,000/- from two companies namely AMPL and WEPL which has been held by the AO as bogus transaction and added to the total income under section 68 of the Act. However, the same was deleted by the learned CIT(A) by holding that all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act being identity, genuineness of transaction and credit worthiness of the parties has been established by the fact that the investor companies have made declaration of huge undisclosed income under Income Declaration Scheme 2016 brought by the Finance Act 2016 and paid due taxes on such income. 11.1 The case of the Revenue before us is that the burden of the assessee under section 68 of the Act does not get absolved by the fact that the creditors have paid taxes on undisclosed income in their hands. It is the duty of the assessee to prove the identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors/ parties. 11.2 Now the controversy arises for our adjudication to see whether the assessee has furnished the necessary details with respect to the identity, creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions in the given facts and circumstances. There is no ambiguity to the fact that companies namely YMPL and WEPL being the investor in the assessee company have opted Income Disclosure Scheme 2016. The company namely WMPL has disclosed an income of Rs.39,05,00,000 under the Income Disclosure Scheme 2016 in different assessment years which is evident from page 20 of the paper book. Likewise, the company namely YMPL has also made the disclosure of the income under the income disclosure scheme 2016. As such the company namely YMPL has disclosed the investment in the shares of different companies as application of its income where the name of the assessee was also appearing. This fact can be verified from page 23 of the paper book. The amount shown by the assessee as share capital in its books of account is duly matching with the application of the undisclosed income

IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 15 offered by YMPL. Identical facts are also there with respect to the other companies namely WEPL.

11.3 Thus the amount of share capital received by the assessee from the companies namely YMPL and WEPL and the brokerage income has suffered the tax in the hands of relevant companies. Accordingly, it is not advisable to hold that the amount of share capital received by the assessee company from these companies is bogus in the given facts and circumstances. It is for the reason that the assessee has discharged its onus imposed under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. In other words, the identity and the creditworthiness of the parties cannot be doubted due to the fact that the assessee has received share capital in the form of tax paid money. At the time of hearing, the learned DR could not controvert the finding of the learned CIT-A.

11.4 In view of the above, there is no ambiguity to the fact that the amount disclosed by the companies namely YMPL and WEPL in the Income Disclosure Scheme 2016 as income was duly accepted by the Revenue and the concern parties have also paid the taxes thereon. In the declaration made by these companies for the income, the application of such income was shown by way of investment in the form of shares in the assessee company which was also accepted by the revenue. Thus it can be inferred that the amount of money received by the assessee from the companies namely YMPL and WEPL has already suffered to tax. Thus, if any addition is made in the hands of the company on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, would lead to the double addition which is unwanted under the provisions of law.”

IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 17 M/s GTC Oilfield Services P.Ltd. Ahmedabad AY 2009-10 Sr. Description Paper Book No. Page No.

1. Share Capital & Premium received from Baghban Marketing P.Ltd. of Rs.5,74,50,000/- 2. Baghban Marketing P.Ltd. disclosed Income under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016: - Form -1 - Declaration under IDS, 2016 7 - Year-wise disclosure shown in Annexure to Form-1 9&10 - Annexure-'B' of Form shows application of Income by 12 way of Investment in shares of GTC Oilfield Services P.Ltd. of Rs.5,74,50,000 - Form-2 (Taxes payable) 13 - Form - 3 (Intimation of tax payment) 14 - Form -4 Issued by PCIT (Central), Ahmedabad for final 41 acceptance of IDS, 2016 M/s GTC Oilfield Services P.Ltd. Ahmedabad AY: 2010-11 Sr. Description Paper Book Page No. No. Baghban Yamini Marketing Marketing P. Ltd. P.Ltd.

1. Share Capital & Premium received from - — Baghban Marketing P.Ltd. Rs. 2,96,29,500 Yamini Marketing P.Ltd. Rs. 19,99,500 Rs. 3,16,29,000 2. Baghban Marketing P.Ltd. & Yamini Marketing P.Ltd. disclosed Income under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016: - Form -1 - Declaration under IDS, 2016 7 18 - Year-wise disclosure shown in Annexure to 9&10 20&21 Form-1 - Annexure-'B' of Form shows application of 12 23 Income by way of Investment in shares of GTC Oilfield Services P.Ltd.: Baghban Marketing P.Ltd. Rs. 2,96,29,500 Yamini Marketing P.Ltd. Rs. 19,99,500 Rs. 3,16,29,000 - Form-2 (Taxes payable) 13 24 - Form - 3 (Intimation of tax payment 14 25 - Form -4 Issued by PCIT (Central), Ahmedabad for 41 43 final acceptance of IDS, 2016

IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 18 M/s GTC Oilfield Services P.Ltd. Ahmedabad AY : 2014-15 Sr. Description Paper Book No. Page No.

1. Share Capital and premium received from Westwell Exports P.Ltd. through its paper Company M/s Ambica Commodeal P Ltd. Rs.5,37,22,500/- 2. Westwell Exports disclosed income under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 : - Form -1 - Declaration under IDS, 2016 29 - Year-wise disclosure shown in Annexure to Form-1 31 &32 Annexure-'B' of Form shows application of Income by way of 34 Investment in shares of M/s GTC Oilfield Services P.Ltd. of Rs. 5,37,22,500/- - Form-2 (Taxes payable) 35 - Form - 3 (Intimation of tax payment) 36 - Form -4 Issued by PCIT (Central), Ahmedabad for final 41 acceptance of IDS, 2016 M/s GTC Oilfield Services P. Ltd. Ahmedabad A Y : 2015-16 Sr. Description Paper Book No. Page No.

1. Share capital and premium received from Westwell Exports P.Ltd. through its paper Company M/s Ambica Commodeal PLtd. Rs.3,01, 89,500/- 2. Westweil Exports P.Ltd. disclosed Income under income Declaration Scheme, 2016: - Form -1 - Declaration under IDS, 2016 29 - Year-wise disclosure shown in Annexure to Form-1 31-32 - Annexure-'B' of Form shows application of Income by way of 34 Investment in shares of GTC Oilfield of Rs. 3,01,89,500/- - Form-2 (Taxes payable) 35 - Form - 3 (Intimation of tax payment) 36 - Form -4 Issued by PCIT (Central), Ahmedabad for final 41 acceptance of IDS, 2016 Globe Ecologistics P. Ltd. Ahmedabad AY : 2013-14 Sr. Description Paper No. Book Page No.

1. Share Capital and premium received from Yamini Marketing Pvt.Ltd. through its paper Company M/s Ambica Commodeal PLtd. Rs.12,05,75,000/- 2. Yamini Marketing disclosed income under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 : - Form -1 - Declaration under IDS, 2016 17

IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 19

- Year-wise disclosure shown in Annexure to Form-1 19-20 - Annexure-'B' of Form shows application of Income by way of 22 Investment in shares of Globe Ecologistics P. Ltd. of Rs. 12,05,75,000/- - Form-2 (Taxes payable) 23 - Form - 3 (Intimation of tax payment) 24 - Form -4 Issued by PCIT (Central), Ahmedabad for final 29 acceptance of IDS, 2016 M/s GTC Petrotech P. Ltd. Ahmedabad AY 2014-15 Sr. Description Paper Book No. Page No.

1. Share capital and premium received from Westwell Exports P.Ltd. through its paper Company M/s Ambica Commodeal PLtd. Rs.2,15,00,000/- 2. Westwell Exports disclosed income under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 : - Form -1 - Declaration under IDS, 2016 63 PB-II - Year-wise disclosure shown in Annexure to Form-1 66 & 67 PB-II Annexure-'B' of Form shows application of Income by way 71- PB-II of Investment in shares of GTC Petrotech P. Ltd. of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- - Form-2 (Taxes payable) 4 -PB-I - Form -4 Issued by PCIT (Central), Ahmedabad for final 9-PB-l acceptance of IDS, 2016 Globe Ecologistics P. Ltd. Ahmedabad AY : 2011-12 SN Description Paper Book Page No. West well Yamini Exports Marketing P.Ltd. P.Ltd.

1. Share capital and premium received from : — — Westwell Export P. Ltd. 7,78,00,000 Yamini Marketing P. Ltd. 3,95,00,000 11,73,00,000 2. Westwell Exports and Yamini Marketing disclosed income under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 : - Form -1 - Declaration under IDS, 2016 6 17

- Year-wise disclosure shown in Annexure to Form-1 8-9 19-20

IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 20

- Annexure-'B' of Form shows application of Income 11 22 by way of Investment in shares of Globe cologistics P. Ltd: Westwell Export P. Ltd. 7,78,00,000 Yamini Marketing P.Ltd. 3,95,00,000 11,73,00,000 - Form-2 (Taxes payable) 12 23 - Form - 3 (Intimation of tax payment) 13 24 - Form -4 Issued by PCIT (Central), Ahmedabad for 29 32 final acceptance of IDS, 2016 Globe Ecologistics P. Ltd. Ahmedabad AY : 2012-13 SN Description Paper Book Page No. West well Yamini Exports Marketing P.Ltd. P.Ltd.

IT(SS)A Nos. 314 to 317, 971 of 2019 & 111, 117, 118 of 2018 Assessees : GTC Oilfields, Globe Ecologistics & GTC Petrotech AYs : 2009-10 to 2015-16 22 Oilfield Services Pvt. Ltd. for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, we find ourselves in agreement with the learned Counsel for the assessee that both the issues involved in the present cases relating to the deletion by the learned CIT(A) of the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit representing share capital and share premium and under Section 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure allegedly incurred for obtaining accommodation entries are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of this Tribunal dated 31.03.2022 passed in the case of M/s. GTC Oilfield Services Pvt. Ltd. for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13. Respectfully following the said decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal as well as decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M.R. Shah Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we find no infirmity in the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit representing share capital and share premium and under Section 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure allegedly incurred for obtaining accommodation entries in all the years under consideration as the same clearly amounted to charging the same income twice. We accordingly uphold the said orders on both the issues under consideration and dismiss these appeals filed by the Revenue.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st October, 2022 at Ahmedabad.