TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fresh information from the Investigation Wing against the assessee because in the reasons for reopening of the assessment, the Assessing Officer has referred to the study of the assessment record of M/s. Kisco Castings Pvt. Ltd. from where it was revealed that Investigation Wing has made same reference against the assessee but there is no direct reference of receipt of any accommodation entry by the assessee-company. Considering the above discussion, it is clear that the Assessing Officer merely acted on suspicion against the assessee. It is a mere case of change of opinion and the Assessing Officer has not examined any material against the assessee for reopening of the assessment. The Assessing Officer was having no specific evidence or material against the assessee for reopening of the assessment. No fresh material has been brought on record to justify reopening of the assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer has not validly assumed jurisdiction under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for reopening of the assessment in the matter. The decisions relied upon by the learned Departmental representative are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. We, accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case was reopened under section 148 of the Act by recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment dated December 17, 2012. The copy of the same is filed at pages 12 to 17 of the paper book and reads as under : Reasons for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 1. Name and address of the assessee M/s. A. P. Refinery P. Ltd. Village Saroud, Ludhiana Road, Malerkotla. 2. PAN AABCA1353B 3. Assessment year 2009-10 The assessee filed its return of income on September 27, 2009, declaring nil income. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on December 30, 2011, by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-IV(3), Malerkotla, at nil income. However, the loss to be carried forward was reduced from ₹ 1,50,37,116 to ₹ 64,92,340 as total additions/disallowances amount ing to ₹ 85,44,773 were made on various accounts. While dealing with the appellate order of the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in the case of Kisco Castings (P) Ltd., Khanna, for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. M/s. Jindal Proteins 2,62,00,000 13. Miscellaneous (share application) 11,75,000 7,61,75,000 Out of these, the following companies belong to the group controlled by Shri Tarun Goyal : (Rs.) 1. M/s. Campari Fiscal Services (P) Ltd. 62,00,000 2. M/s. Taurus Iron and Steel Co. (P) Ltd. 1,05,00,000 3. M/s. Tejasvi Investments (P) Ltd. 27,00,000 4. M/s. Thar Steel (P) Ltd. 55,00,000 Total 2,49,00,000 The detailed facts relating to these, as coming out from the report of the Investigation Wing and as analysed in the case of M/s. Kisco Castings (P) Ltd. are as below : (i) Sh. Tarun Goyal had floated about 90 companies for the purpose or providing accommodation entries. (ii) Non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms appear to be filled-in in the handwriting of Sh. Tarun Goyal. (vii) All the books of account of all these companies have been retrieved from the computers/laptop of Sh. Tarun Goyal. (viii) Sh. Tarun Goyal gave letters for release of bank account of the companies which had been put under restraint after search. No such appli cation was from the so-called directors of these companies. Even the various proceedings in respect of these companies before the Assessing Officers or the appellate authorities were also attended by Sh. Tarun Goyal only. (ix) Sh. Tarun Goyal could not produce the directors of various companies before the Income-tax authorities. (x) Even the auditors of various companies admitted that they had no knowledge about the directors of the companies and the audits were done by them at the instructions of Sh. Tarun Goyal. Sh. Rakesh Sharma, who signed the audit reports of seven companies stated that he came to know about these companies through Sh. Tarun Goyal, he had no knowledge of the directors or shareholders of these companies. Similarly, Sh. Mahavir Prashad, another auditor, stated that he audited 20 companies. The address of all these was 13/34 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvation of the hon'ble High Court are reproduced as below (page 191) : 30. The findings of the Tribunal cannot be upheld as they are based on irrelevant material or have been entered by ignoring the relevant material. The finding that the share application monies have come through account payee cheques is, at best neutral. The question required a thorough examination and not a superficial examination. If anything, in the light of the material gathered by the Investigation Wing about the modus operandi followed by the entry providers, the statements of Mukesh Gupta and Rajan Jassal the plea that the money was sent through banking channels, loses all force. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the modus operandi involves receipt by the entry providers of equivalent amount of cash from the asses see. The facts that the companies which subscribed to the shares were borne on the file of the Registrar of Companies is again a neutral fact. Every company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 has to comply with statutory formalities. That these companies were complying with such formalities does not add any credibility or evidentiary value. In any case, it does not ipso facto p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such a case, the Assessing Officer cannot sit back with folded hands till the assessee exhausts all the evidence or material in his possession and then come forward to merely reject the same, without carrying out any verification or enquiry into the material placed before him. The case before us does not fall under this category and it would be a travesty of truth and justice to express a view to the contrary. After going into the factual matrix of the case as above, the hon'ble High Court has held as below (page 199) : 43. In the case before us, not only did the material before the Assessing Officer show the link between the entry providers and the assessee-company, but the Assessing Officer had also provided the statements of Mukesh Gupta and Rajan Jassal to the assessee in compliance with the rules of natural justice. Out of the 22 companies whose name figured in the information given by them to the Investigation Wing, 15 companies had provided the so-called 'share subscription monies' to the assessee. There was thus specific involvement of the assessee-company in the modus operandi followed by Mukesh Gupta and Rajan Jassal. Thus, on crucial factual aspects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count as an amount received from the said entities. The date of filing of the original return in the case of the assessee is September 27, 2009 for the assessment year under appeal. The date of search under section 132 of the Act at the residence/premises of Shri Tarun Goyal is dated September 15, 2008 and the date of search at the premises of Shri Surinder Kumar Jain and Virender Jain is dated September 14, 2010. The original assessment in the case of the assessee under section 143(3) for the assessment year under appeal was completed on December 30, 2011. The perusal of the original assessment record will make it clear that matter relating to increase in share capital was duly dealt with, investigated and enquired into by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, the facts of the results of search conducted at the premises of Shri Tarun Goyal and Shri Surinder Kumar Jain and Shri Virender Kumar Jain was well within the knowledge of the Department at the time of assessment completed in the case of the assessee. In fact, the search in the case of Shri Tarun Goyal Jain conducted on September 15, 2008, i.e., much before even filing of the original return of income by the assessee. Thus, reass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter and also directed to file evidence regarding the same. He has submitted that the assessee has submitted various replies before the Assessing Officer, copy of the reply dated December 26, 2011, and December 28, 2011, are placed on record in which the assessee explained the identity of the shareholders, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. It was also explained that these companies have confirmed giving share application money to the assessee in their replies directly submitted to the Assessing Officer. The transactions were conducted through banking channel. The assessee relied upon various decisions in support of the contention of receipt of genuine share application money including the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR (SC) 195; [2009] 319 ITR (St.) 5 (SC). The assessee also explained that all these companies have confirmed their transactions with the assessee and are existing companies and registered with the Registrar of Companies. The assessee-company has filed confirmation from these companies, proof of return filed, bank acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the share capital and amount received by the assessee from various companies including the five companies in reference. Therefore, on mere change of opinion, the Assessing Officer should not reopen the assessment. He has also filed copy of the statement of Shri Tarun Goyal on the day of search dated September 15, 2008 and next date September 16, 2008, copy of which is filed at paper book pages 36 to 51 and submitted that Shri Tarun Goyal has not named the assessee-company of giving any accommodation entry. Learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Swarovski India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2016] 6 ITR (OL) 4 (Delhi) dated September 29, 2015, in Writ Petition No. 1772 of 2014 in which in paragraph 16, hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under (page 12) : 16. In the present case, this is exactly what has happened as queries and issues have been specifically raised and answered by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings. Thus, even though the Assessing Officer did not make any addition in the assessment order, it would have to be accepted that the issue was examined but the Assessing Officer did not find any ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d CIT v. Navodaya Castles P. Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 306 (Delhi). The learned Departmental representative placed on record letter dated April 6, 8, 2009, issued by the ADIT (Investigation) Unit-IV, New Delhi, to the Commissioner of Income-tax-I Ludhiana with list of beneficiaries of accommodation entries provided by Shri Tarun Goyal. 13. After considering the rival submissions, we do not find any justification to sustain the impugned orders regarding re-opening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act. The hon'ble Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] by following Circular No. 549 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes ([1990] 182 ITR (St.) 1 ) held that on mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer cannot be a ground for reassessment and that amendment of section 147 with effect from April 1, 1989 has not altered the position. The hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Garden Silk Mills P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [1999] 237 ITR 668 (Guj) held that however wide the scope of taking action under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, it does not confirm jurisdiction on change of the interpretatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and truly disclose all materials facts necessary for assessment. There is a difference between a wrong claim made by an assessee after disclosing all the true and material facts and a wrong claim made by the asses see by withholding the material facts fully and truly. It is only in the latter case that the Assessing Officer would be entitled to proceed under section 147. Held, allowing the petition, that the Assessing Officer had not recorded the failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment year 1997-98. What was recorded was that the petitioner had wrongly claimed certain deductions which he was not entitled to. The reassessment proceedings initiated in the year 2004 were not valid. 14. The hon'ble Delhi High Court also in the case of Swarovski India P. Ltd. (supra) did not approve the reopening of the assessment on mere change of opinion when the Assessing Officer has raised a query and answered by the assessee at the original assessment proceedings. The hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur [2009] 311 ITR 38 (P H) held as under (headnote) : Held, tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer in the reasons for reopening of the assessment has considered four parties, i.e., M/s. Campari Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Taurus Iron and Steel Co. P. Ltd., M/s. Tejasvi Investments (P) Ltd. and M/s. Thar Steel Pvt. Co. for considering investment in a sum of ₹ 2.49 crores. However, at the time of passing of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 3.74 crores under section 68 of the Income-tax Act by including M/s. Shalini Holdings for making investment in the assessee-company in a sum of ₹ 1.25 crores. Learned counsel for the assessee has placed on record copies of the enquiry letters issued by the Assessing Officer at the original assessment stage in which the Assessing Officer called for the details of additions in share capital money by giving their names and complete addresses of the persons along with evidences on their identity, creditworthiness, copies of their bank statements and their sources. The assessee submitted his replies before the Assessing Officer at assessment stage in which the assessee clearly stated that the assessee has already filed copies of the confirmations of all these share applicant companies confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber 30, 2011, therefore, the information regarding accommodation entry provided by Shri Tarun Goyal was well within the knowledge of the Income-tax Department but this fact was not taken into consideration against the assessee because the Assessing Officer accepted the genuineness of the share application money in the case of the assessee. It may also be noted here that copies of the statements of Shri Tarun Goyal recorded on the date of search on September 15, 2008, and September 16, 2008, are filed on record in which Shri Tarun Goyal has not made any specific statement against the assessee-company for providing accommodation entry to the assessee-company. Even the Assessing Officer has not examined the information received from Investigation Wing before recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. Therefore, there was nothing on record to justify reopening of the assessment on the basis of these materials which were within the knowledge of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the Assessing Officer acted merely on suspicion which would not prove to be a case of escapement of income. It is admitted fact that the assessee, at the stage of re-opening of the assessment, objected to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for reopening of the assessment in the matter. The decisions relied upon by the learned Departmental representative are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. We, accordingly, set aside the reopening of the assessment and quash the impugned orders under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act. 19. In view of the above, there is no need to consider the issue of additions on merit in detail, however, the evidences on record, as noted above and the share applicant companies in their reply confirmed giving share application money to the assessee before the Assessing Officer clearly show that the initial burden on the assessee has been discharged to prove the identity of the share applicant companies, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. The identical issue was considered by this Bench in the case of Lotus Integrated Taxpark Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2016] 6 ITR (Trib)-OL 9 (Chandigarh) in which in paragraphs 10 to 13, similar addition has been deleted. The findings of the Tribunal in paragraphs 10 to 13 of this order are reproduced as under (page 21) : 10. We have considered the rival sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Glacis Investment Ltd. The balance-sheet of the shareholder company M/s. Glacis Investment Ltd. is also filed on record which is admitted as additional evidence which proved that the principal activity of this company is that of investment holding and was having the sufficient funds/assets to make investment in the assessee-company and that the investment made in the assessee- company have been certified in the balance-sheet. The bank statement of the assessee is also filed on record which support the contention of the assessee that ₹ 3,70,00,000 have been invested by shareholder company in the assessee-company through transfer entries, i.e., banking channels. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the assessee clearly support the contention of the assessee that the assessee has proved the creditworthiness of the shareholder company and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. The documentary evidences produced on record also support the contention of the assessee that the shareholder company M/s. Glacis Investment Ltd., Mauritius has made investment in assessee-company in 7,40,000 equity shares by investing ₹ 3,70,00,000. The shareholder company also fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d issued shares on the receipt of share application money then the amount so received would be credited in the books of account of the company. The Income-tax Officer would be entitled, and it would indeed be his duty, to enquire whether the alleged shareholders do in fact exist or not. If the shareholders exist then, possibly, no further enquiry need be made. But if the Income-tax Officer finds that the alleged share holders do not exist then, in effect, it would mean that there is no valid issuance of share capital. Shares cannot be issued in the name of non-existing persons. The use of the words 'may be charged' in section 68 clearly indicates that the Income-tax Officer would then have the jurisdiction, if the facts so warrant, to treat such a credit to be the income of the assessee. If the shareholders are identified and it is established that they have invested money in the purchase of shares, then the amount received by the company would be regarded as a capital receipt and to that extent the observations in CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Delhi), are correct ; but the observations in that case to the effect that even if the subscribers to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh conclusively that the finding regarding the genuineness of the subscribers and the transactions suffered from any irrationality, no substantial question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal. The deletion of the amount was justified . Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. Down Town Hospital Pvt. Ltd. [2004] 267 ITR 439 (Gauhati), held that regarding amounts received as share application moneys, the Tribunal had given clear finding after appreciation of the materials on record that the assessee had filed the details regarding the source of funds of shares and their Income-tax file numbers before the Assessing Officer. According to the Tribunal the assessee had also submitted before the Assessing Officer the confirmation from the creditors where full addresses, Income-tax file number, etc., were given. The Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition . Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 377 (Raj), held (headnote) if the trans actions are made through banking channels and once the existence of persons by name in the share applications in whose name the shares have been issued is shown, the assessee-compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in that case that credit entry cannot be treated to be the income of the firm or the purposes of Income-tax . The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench in the case of ACIT v. Vindhya Soya Ltd., I. T. A. No. 227/IND/2004, held in the instant case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in annexure of his order has mentioned details of the shareholder, their addresses, holding of agricultural land, permanent account number of some of the shareholders, amount of deposit, their occupation and evidence filed in form of confirmation letter, copy of acknowledgment receipt of some of the shareholders filing return of income, evidence of agricultural holding, etc. We have also noted that the assessee- company has furnished complete details of all the shareholders. Therefore, before drawing any conclusion the Assessing Officer should have issued summons under section 131 to these shareholders to arrive at the truth about the investment made by them. However, no such exercise was carried out by the Assessing Officer and simply for the reason that the amount was deposited in cash, he held that the creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction was not proved. The Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finance Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 477 (Raj), held (headnote) that it was not denied that all the shareholders/share applicants were genuinely existing persons. It was also not denied that each of them was an Income-tax assessee and copies of the return of their income were also placed before the Assessing Officer. There was no presumption that the assessee was the benami owner of the Investment made by the existing persons. The Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition . The hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent decision in the case of CIT v. Illac Investment P. Ltd. [2006] 287 ITR 135 (Delhi), held (page 136) the respondent-assessee had for the assessment year 1989-90 disclosed in its return sum of ₹ 4,75,000 received as share application money. The Assessing Officer added the said amount to the taxable income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the identity of the subscribers had not been established. In an appeal filed by the assessee against the said order, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the asses see had satisfactorily established identity of the share subscribers. The view taken with the Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oreign investor M/s. Alliance Industries Ltd. is therefore established beyond doubt. The Assessing Officer also did not dispute the identity and existence of the share holder M/s. Alliance Industries Ltd. The Assessing Officer also did not dispute transfer of money by M/s. Alliance Industries Ltd. to the assessee for the purchase of shares of the assessee-company and the amount invested in the assessee-company on account of share capital/share premium. The assessee from the certificate of the Government of India has established that M/s. Alliance Industries Ltd. invested the money in the business of the assessee after obtain ing the permission of the Government of India. The forms filed with the Reserve Bank of India would also indicate that the foreign remit tances received from M/s. Alliance Industries Ltd. were duly approved by the Reserve Bank of India for investment in the shareholding of the assessee-company. The assessee also filed several certificates issued time to time by the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Bhopal explaining therein that on several dates the foreign remittances were ordered, to be credited to the account of the assessee with the State Bank of Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quiry has been made into the matter. It would also prove that the money in question flow from M/s. Alliance Industries Ltd. therefore the Assessing Officer was not justified in drawing adverse inference against the assessee. The Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence on record that the share application money received by assessee from M/ s. Alliance Industries Ltd. belong to the assessee or that it was the assessee's own money which it had received in the shape of dollars from the non-resident Indian company. It is therefore not in the nature of income of the assessee because the money received was on account of share capital/share premium. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has given categorical finding in the impugned order that the Assessing Officer himself had accepted the similar deposits in the earlier assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 as genuine. He also observed in fact the assessment order relating to the assessment year 2001-02 was passed after inquiry under section 143(3) wherein similar investment from same non-resident Indian company M/s. Alliance Industries Ltd. to the tune of ₹ 4,64,71,322 was accepted as genuine and investment of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctories Ltd. [1981] 128 ITR 610 (Orissa) at pages 613-614 . The hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Vikas Chemi Gum India [2005] 276 ITR 32 (P H) held (headnote) that since the appellant did not challenge the order passed by the Tribunal in relation to the assessment year 1986-87 by which it confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of value of 'bardana' used for storing 'churi and korma', it could not challenge a similar order passed in relation to the assessment year 1988-89 . The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 99 (SC) held High Court-decision in the case of one assessee-Department accepting and not challenging correctness-Not open to the Department to challenge in the case of other assessees, without just cause . In view of the above facts and decisions noted, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Departmental representative, the same is therefore rejected. The learned Departmental represent ative also submitted that balance-sheet of M/s. Alliance Industries Ltd. is not filed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of share capital by public issue is lighter one and therefore such onus would stand discharged if identity of share appli cant is established-held-Yes'. This case is not applicable in favour of the Revenue because the amount is not received from close relative or friend. 12.1 On going through the above documentary evidences on records and the judicial pronouncements referred to above, it is clear neither the Assessing Officer nor the learned Departmental representative appearing for the Revenue have disputed the documentary evidences filed by the assessee before the authorities below. The only point agitated by the Assessing Officer was creditworthiness of M/s. Alliance Industries Ltd. which is also satisfactorily proved by the assessee. The decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98 (Delhi) [FB] holds the field. The hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Dhar Ispat P. Ltd. held that the question of genuineness of entries regarding share application money is a question of fact to be decided on the basis of evidence available on record. The assessee on the basis of evidence available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfactory, the amount were not of the nature of income. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the order and the Tribunal through majority view confirmed the orders of the authorities below. On an appeal, the High Court reappreciated the evidence and substituted its own finding and came to the conclusion that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal were in the realm of surmises, conjecture and suspicion. The hon'ble Supreme Court on such facts held, reversing the decision of the High Court, that the findings of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were based on the material on record and not on any conjectures and surmises. That the money came by way of bank cheques and was paid through the process of banking transaction was not by itself of any consequence. The High Court misdirected itself and erred in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact . However, the facts and circumstances of the appeal before us are clearly distinguishable as noted above. The reliance of the learned Departmental representative on the cases referred to above are there fore misplaced. 12.2 Considering the above discussion, we do not find any i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are application money from this non-resident company. Thus, the assessee had established the identity of the shareholder company and that transaction was genuine. The assessee has also proved the creditworthiness of the shareholder company, therefore, the authorities below were not justified in making the huge addition against the assessee. 13. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances on the basis of the evidences on record and in the light of the judicial pronouncements noted above, we are of the view that the assessee has been able to prove the identity of the creditor which is not in dispute, creditworthiness of the shareholder company and genuine ness of the transaction in the matter. Therefore, addition of ₹ 3.70 crores under section 68 of the Act is wholly unjustified. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete addition of ₹ 3.70 crores. In the result, ground No. 1 of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 20. In view of the above, we find that the issue on the merits is also covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Lotus Integrated Taxpark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
