TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sted the Ld. AR to produce the director of the assessee company and also the directors of the share allottee companies and fixed the date of hearing on 23.02.2015. According to the AO, there was no compliance. So final opportunity was given to the assessee to comply with the physical appearance of the directors. However, the AO notes that none appeared. According to the AO, since the Balance Sheet reveals that fresh share capital including share premium has been received by the assessee and since recorded in the Balance Sheet, it establishes the credit of the same in the books of account maintained by the assessee. According to the AO, since responses to the queries raised by him has not been satisfactorily explained, the nature and source of the said sum found credited could not be established, he was of the opinion that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of receiving the huge money as share capital. Therefore, he added the sum of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- (though Rs. 2,10,00,000 received by the assessee in this AY as share capital and share premium, the AO accepted the share capital invested by three individuals to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/- and did not accept the amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck Exchange and is incorporated 32 years back which fact can be discerned from a perusal of the audited financials (annual report) a copy of which is filed from page 28 to 59 of the paper book. A perusal of page 36 of paper book this fact is noted i.e, is incorporated 32 years back as well as about the fact of listing in Calcutta Stock Exchange is stated therein. 5. Thereafter, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the Balance Sheet of M/s. Quest Financial Services Ltd. which is placed at page 40 of paper book from where he drew our attention to the own funds of the said company from where it is noted that the share capital and reserve and surplus as on 31.03.2011 (AY 2011-12) (which means the opening balance for the AY 2012-13) wherein we note that M/s. Quest Financial Services Ltd. had Rs. 13.8 cr. (as share capital) and Rs. 3.5 cr. (as reserve and surplus) which means M/s. Quest Financial Services Ltd. had more than Rs. 16 cr. as opening balance for this AY 2012-13 i.e. as on 01.04.2011. Thereafter, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2012 (AY 2012-13) wherein the M/s Quest Financial Services Ltd's share capital has increased manifold by more than Rs. 12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shares is found placed. Relevant bank statement is found at pages 55 to 56 of the paper book from where it is discerned that M/s. Quest Financial Services Ltd. has transferred an amount of Rs. 1 crore by RTGS on 27.03.2012. Perusal of page 67 of paper book reveals the source of source of this amount. Thus, according to the Ld. AR, the assessee has discharged the burden on it to prima facie prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of M/s. Quest Financial Services Ltd. which fact has not been rebutted by AO. 6. Thereafter, he drew our attention to the next corporate entity M/s. Anurag Infrastructure Ltd. which subscribed for shares in assessee company. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that M/s. Anurag Infrastructure Ltd. had filed ITR acknowledgment for the AY 2012-13 and its PAN is AAJCA1464E and it is assessed by ITO, Ward-50(4), Kolkata. Ld. AR drew our attention to pages 69 to 85 of the paper book wherein financial statement (audited accounts) of M/s. Anurag Infrastructure Ltd. is found placed. He drew our attention to page 75 of paper book wherein the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2012 is found placed. Thereafter, the Ld. AR contended that the said company ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 wherein it has been held that the onus of the assessee stands fully discharged if the identity of the creditor is established and actual receipt from such creditors is proved, then in that event no addition u/s. 68 of the Act can be made in the assessee's hand and in case if the AO is still not satisfied, then he should proceed against the creditors. The Ld. AR also cited the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dataware Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT No. 263 of 2011 dated 21.09.2011) wherein the Hon'ble court observed that if the AO of the assessee is not satisfied with the creditworthiness of the creditor, then the proper course of action is that he (AO of the assessee) should undertake is that, he (the AO of the assessee) should enquire from the AO of the creditor and if it turns out that the AO of the creditor has accepted the transaction i.e if the AO of the creditor has accepted the investment made in assessee company, then no adverse view should be taken against th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansaction with the appellant was duly highlighted in the bank statement, vi) Confirmation from the shareholders as to the respective investment, vii) Evidence of source of source of the shareholder, 10. In the light of the aforesaid documents the assessee pleads that no addition u/s. 68 of the Act was warranted. Before we adjudicate as to whether the lower authorities action is right, let us refresh ourselves the provisions (section 68 of the Act) and the settled legal position. 11. Section 68 under which the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer reads as under: "68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. " The phraseology of section 68 is clear. The Legislature has laid down that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition the Revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the lack of creditworthiness and mere non-compliance of summons issued by the Assessing Officer under section 131, by the alleged creditors will not be sufficient to draw and adverse inference against the assessee. in the case of six creditors who appeared before the Assessing Officer and whose statements were recorded by the Assessing Officer, they have admitted having advanced loans to the assessee by account payee cheques and in case the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the cash amount deposited by those creditors in their bank accounts, the proper course would have been to make assessments in the cases of those creditors by' treating the cash deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69. 13. In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari 136 Taxman 213, (supra), the Hon'ble Guahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ******** What, thus, transpires from the above discussion is that white section 106 of the Evidence Act limits the onus of the assessee to the extent of his proving the source from which he has received the cash credit, section 68 gives ample freedom to the Assessing Officer to make inquiry not only into the source(s)of the creditor but also of his (creditor's) sub-creditors and prove, as a result, of such inquiry, that the money received by the assessee, in the form of loan from the creditor, though routed through the sub-creditors, actually belongs to, or was of, the assessee himself. In other words, while section 68 gives the liberty to the Assessing Officer to enquire into the source/source from where the creditor has received the money, section 106 makes the assessee liable to disclose only the source(s) from where he has himself received the credit and IT is not the burden of the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the source(s) of the sub-creditors. If section 106 and section 68 are to stand together, which they must, then, the interpretation of section 68 are to stand together, which they must, then the interpretation of section 68 has to be in suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor vis-a-vis the transactions which had taken place between the assessee and the creditor and not between the creditor and the sub-creditors, for, it is not even required under the law for the assessee to try to find out as to what sources from where the creditor had received the amount, his special knowledge under section 106 of the Evidence Act may very well remain confined only to the transactions, which he had' with the creditor and he may not know what transaction(s) had taken place between his creditor and the sub-creditor... " ********** "In other words, though under section 68 an Assessing Officer is free to show, with the help of the inquiry conducted by him into the transactions, which have taken place between the creditor and the sub-creditor, that the transaction between the two were not genuine and that the sub-creditor had no creditworthiness, it will not necessarily mean that the loan advanced by the sub-creditor to the creditor was income of the assessee from undisclosed source unless there is evidence, direct or circumstantial, to show that the amount which has been adva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., has observed and held as under:- "4. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the assessee has discharged the onus which was on him to explain the nature and source of cash credit in question. The assessee discharged the onus by placing (i) confirmation letters of the cash creditors; (ii) their affidavits; (iii) their full addresses and GIR numbers and permanent account numbers. It has found that the assessee's burden stood discharged and so, no addition to his total income on account of cash credit was called for. In view of this finding, we find that the Tribunal was right in reversing the order of the AA C, setting aside the assessment order." 15. We also take note of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in the case of S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata 347 ITR 347 wherein the Court held as follows: "15. It is now a settled law that while considering the question whether the alleged loan taken by the assessee was a genuine transaction, the initial onus is always upon the assessee and if no explanation is given or the explanation given by the appellant is not satisfactory, the Assessing Officer can disbel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entire judgment of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), therefore, it was not proper to take up some portion of the judgment of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and to ignore the other portion of the same. The judicial propriety and fairness demands that the entire judgment both favourable and unfavourable should have been considered. By not doing so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has merely noticed that since the summons issued before assessment returned unserved and no one came forward to prove. Ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound no single word has been spared to up set the fact finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that there are materials to show the cash credit was received from various persons and supply as against cash credit also made. 13. Hence, the judgment and order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. We restore the judgment and order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeal is allowed. 17. When a question as to the creditworthiness of a creditor is to be adjudicated and if the creditor is an Income Tax assessee, it is now well settled by the decision of the Calcutta High Court that the creditworthiness of the creditor cannot be disputed by the AO of the assessee but the AO of the creditor. In this regards our attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in the COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKA TA-Ill Versus DATAWARE PRIVATE LIMITED ITAT No. 263 of 2011 Date: 21st September, 2011 wherein the Court held as follows: "In our opinion, in such circumstances, the Assessing officer of the assessee cannot take the burden of assessing the profit and loss account of the creditor when admi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght to have held that the assessee had not established the genuineness of the transaction. " It appears from the record that in the assessment proceedings it was noticed that the assessee company during the year under consideration had brought Rs. 4, 00, 000/- and Rs. 20,00,000/- towards share capital and share premium respectively amounting to Rs. 24,00, 000/- from four shareholders being private limited companies. The Assessing Officer on his part called for the details from the assessee and also from the share applicants and analyzed the facts and ultimately observed certain abnormal features, which were mentioned in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer, therefore, concluded that nature and source of such money was questionable and evidence produced was unsatisfactory. Consequently, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions under Section 68/69 of the Income Tax Act and made addition of Rs. 24,00,000/-. On appeal the Learned CIT (A) by following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cl. T. vs. M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 allowed the appeal by holding -that share capital/premium of Rs. 24,00,000/- re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the basis of allotment approved by the Stock Exchange. The Assessee Company had duly filed the return of allotment with the Registrar of Companies, giving complete particulars of the allottees. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that inquires had confirmed the existence of most of the shareholders at the addresses intimated to the Assessing Officer, but the Assessing Officer took the view that their investment in the Assessee Company was not genuine, on the basis of some extraneous reasons. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) took note of the observation of the Assessing Officer that enquiry conducted by the Income Tax Inspector had revealed that nine persons making applications for 900 shares were not available at the given address and rightly concluded that the total share capital issued by the Assessee Company could not be added as unexplained cash credit under 'Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Moreover, if the nature and source of investment by any shareholder, in shares of the Assessee Company remained unexplained, liability could not be foisted on the company. The concerned shareholders would have to explain the source of their fund. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... particulars of shareholders are disclosed, it is for those shareholders to explain the source of their funds and not for the assessee company to show wherefrom these shareholders obtained funds." 21. Further, our attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. Leonard Commercial (P) Ltd on 13 June, 2011 in ITAT NO 114 of 2011 wherein the Court held as follows: "The only question raised in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal below erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,52,000/-, Rs. 91,50,000/- and Rs. 13,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of share capital, share application money and investment in HTCCL respectively. After hearing Md. Nizamuddin, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the materials on record, we find that all such application money were received by the assessee by way of account payee cheques and the assessee also disclosed the complete list of shareholders with their complete addresses and GIR Numbers for the relevant assessment years in which share application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port and accounts for FY 2011-12 (AY 2012-13). From a perusal of page 36 of paper book, we note that this is a listed company in the Calcutta Stock Exchange and listing fee has been paid upto date. We note that this company invested a sum of Rs. 1 cr. in the appellant/assessee company. We find that the share application money was paid through banking channel (RTGS) which is evident from the bank statement of Bank of Borada, Burrabazar, Kolkata filed at pages 65 and 66 of the paper book. This company has duly filed its return of income before ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata and was having PAN - AAACQ0461C (page 27 and 61 of paper book). This company was having a paid up capital with free reserve and surplus of Rs. 123 cr. plus 48.57 cr. respectively as on 31.03.2012 and its opening balance as on 01.04.2011 was to the tune of Rs. 16 cr. In this year as per the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court three (3) other companies M/s. Dristi Suppliers, M/s. Pran Jeevan Distributors and M/s. Reward Agencies were amalgamated with the assessee company and the effective date of amalgamation was on 28.09.2011 (page 36 of paper book). On examination of the bank statement it is taken note that there is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplicants. The nature of receipt towards share capital is seen from the entries passed in the respective balance sheets of the companies as share capital and investments. In respect of source of credit, the assessee has to prove the three necessary ingredients i.e. identity of share applicants, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of share applicants. For proving the identity of share applicants, the assessee furnished the name, address, PAN of share applicants together with the copies of balance sheets and Income Tax Returns. With regard to the creditworthiness of share applicants, as we noted supra, these Companies are having capital in several crores of rupees and the investment made in the appellant company is only a small part of their capital. These transactions are also duly reflected in the balance sheets of the share applicants, so creditworthiness is proved. Even if there was any doubt if any regarding the creditworthiness of the share applicants was still subsisting, then AO should have made enquiries from the AO of the share subscribers as held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs DATAWARE (supra) which has not been done, so no adverse view could h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the assessee had discharged the onus of proving their existence and also the source of share application money received. 3.4. 1. We also find that the impugned issue is also covered by the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Roseberry Mercantile (P) Ltd in GA No. 3296 of 2010 ITAT No. 241 of 2010 dated 10.1.2011, wherein the- questions raised before their lordships and decision rendered thereon is as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order as the transaction entered into by the assessee was a scheme for laundering black money into white money or accounted money and the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessee had not established the genuineness of the transaction. " IT A No. 1669/KoI/2009-C-AM M/s. Global Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd 11 Held After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs M/s Lovelv Exports Pvt Ltd, we are at one with the tribunal below that the point involved in this appeal is covered by the said Supreme Court decision in favour of the assessee and thu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....balance sheet. The Learned CITA also observed that the assessee in its reply to show cause notice before the Learned AO had requested him to use his power and authority for the physical appearance of the shareholders which was not exercised by the Learned AO. Instead the Learned AO continued to insist on the assessee to produce the shareholders before him. He ultimately concluded that the assessee had duly discharged its onus of providing complete details of the shareholders and in any case, no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act in the asst year under appeal as no share application monies were received during the asst year under appeal. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us by filing the following ground:- "That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 68 in respect of the allotment of shares to 20 numbers of individual investors for an amount of Rs. 57 lakhs, where genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the investors were not established." 4.3. The Learned DR prayed for admission of the additional ground raised before us and vehemently supported the order of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch every details were very much made available to him by the assessee. We find that the reliance placed by the Learned CITA on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Lovelv Exports (p) Ltd reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) is very well founded, wherein, it has been very clearly held that the only obligation of the company receiving the share application money is to prove the existence of the shareholders and for which the assessee had discharged the onus of proving their existence and also the source of share application money received. 6. 1. We also find that the impugned issue is also covered by the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Roseberrv Mercantile (P) Ltd in GA No. 3296 of 2010 ITAT No. 241 of 2010 dated 10.1.2011, wherein the questions raised before their lordships and decision rendered thereon is as under:- - "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order as the transaction entered into by the assessee was a scheme for laundering black money into white money or accounted money and the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessee had no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....smissed." (c) The Ld. ITAT Kolkata in ITA No.1061/Ko1/2012 in the case of ITO Wd.3(2) Kol, vs. M/s. Steel Emporium Ltd dated 05-02-2016. In this the decision the Ld. Tribunal held as follows: "10. We have heard both the rival parties and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the AO. Before us the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee raised share application money during the year from 25 applicants. The AO was furnished with the copy of Form 2 of Allotment of Shares to the Applicants as filed with the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal. On the date of receipt of Share applications from the Applicants, they furnished their addresses, which were recorded in the Register of Members. The AO observed that as per ROC records the addresses of the nine companies were different from the address as per Form filed with him. The AO issued notices u/s.133(6) to all the companies at the addresses furnished in Form 2 as filed with him, which were duly served at the given addresses. The A0 argued that the letters should not have been served at the given address by the assessee. He served a show a cause notice dated 09.12.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess of the transaction and their creditworthiness. (copy enclosed). h) Copy of audited accounts. i) Copy of bank statements. j) Copy of Income tax acknowledgment of return filed for AY 2009- k) Copy of PAN Card. l) Details of sources of funds. m) Copy of covering letter for delivery of shares. n) Copy of master data as per ministry of Company Affairs records. o) Copy of Annual return. p) Copy of Memorandum and articles of Association. Finally the Ld. AR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A 10. 1 From the aforesaid discussion we find that the AO has made the addition of the share application money because all the nine companies were having the common address and the notice sent under section 133(6) was received by the single person. Accordingly the AO opined that the assessee has used its unaccounted money in the share application transactions. However we find that all the money received in the form of share capital is duly supported with the requisite document as discussed above. To our mind the basis on which the addition was made by the AO is not tenable. The Ld. DR also could not brought an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....address. Since the appellant company had provided sufficient documentary evidences in support of its claim of receipt of share application money, I am of the opinion that the no addition u/s.68 could be made in the hands of appellant company. On going through the various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, it is observed that the view taken as above is also supported by them. In view of above the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 54,00,000/ -. The ground Nos. 2 and 3 are allowed, " 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT{A) the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the submissions of the learned DR, who relied on the order of AO. The learned counsel for the assessee relied on the order of CIT(A) and further drew our attention to the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Raj Kumar Agarwal vide ITA No. 179/2008, dated 17. 11.2009 wherein the Hon 'ble Allahabad High Court took a view that non production of the director of a Public Limited company which is regularly assessed to Income tax having PAN, on the ground that the identity of the investor is not proved cannot be sustained. At....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd doubt, all the payments were through account payee cheques and the share applicants were regular income-tax assessees. The CIT(Appeals) further held that the Revenue did not bring any evidence on record to suggest that the share application had been received by the assessee from its own undisclosed sources nor any material was brought on record to show that .the applicants were bogus. The Revenue was neither able to controvert the documentary evidences filed by the appellant nor prove that the share application were ingenuine or the applicants were non-creditworthy. The findings of the CIT(Appeals) were upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. On appeal to the High Court, the Revenue placed strong reliance on the decision of another coordinate Bench of the same Court in the" case of CIT Vs Novo Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd (342 ITR 169). The High Court however held that the aforesaid judgment was distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The Court observed that in that judgment the Assessing Officer had brought on record enough corroborative evidence to show that the assessee had routed unaccounted monies into its books through medium of share subscription. The sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... why the said amount of Rs. 1,11,50,000/- may not be added to its income. In response, the assessee has submitted that there is no such credit in the books of the assessee. Rather, the assessee company has received the share application money for allotment of its share. It was stated that the actual amount received was Rs. 55,50,000/- and not Rs. 1,11,50,000/- as mentioned in the notice. The assessee has furnished details of such receipts and the contention of the assessee in respect of the amount is found correct. As such the unexplained amount is to be taken at Rs. 55,50,000/-. The assessee has further tries to explain the source of this amount of Rs. 55,50,000/- by furnishing copies of share application money, balance4 sheet etc. of the parties mentioned above and asserted that the question of addition in the income of the assessee does not arise. This explanation of the assessee has been duly considered and found not acceptable. This entry remains unexplained in the hands of the assessee as has been arrived by the Investigation wing of the department. As such entries of Rs. 5~50/000/- received by the assessee are treated as an unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertain facts and the statements of Mr.Mahesh Garg that the income sought to be added fell within the description ofS.68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal in this case accords with the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lovely Exports (supra). The decision in this case is based on the peculiar facts which attract the ratio of Lovely Exports (supra). Where the assessee adduces evidence in support of the share application monies, it is open to the Assessing Officer to examine it and reject it on tenable grounds. In case he wishes to rely on the report of the investigation authorities, some meaningful enquiry ought to be conducted by him to establish a link between the assessee and the alleged hawala operators, such a link was shown to be present in the case of Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the revenue. We are therefore not to be understood to convey that in all cases of share capital added under Section the ratio of Lovely Exports (supra) is attracted, irrespective of the facts, evidence and material. " 29. In this case on hand,....