TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure operation was conducted at various premises of Shri Shirish C. Shah who happened to be main persons engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries like long term capital gains, share capital, share premium and loan etc. Shri Shirish C. Shah directly and indirectly controlled more than 200 companies which include some of the public limited companies also. It was seen from the impounded material that assessee company has received Rs. 45 lakhs in three transactions Dated 18.06.2009 from M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd., through Shri Shirish C. Shah Group. Perusal of the information revealed that M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd., Now known as Aadhar Venture India Ltd., [Investor Company] is one of the conduit company which is controlled and managed by Shri Shirish C. Shah for the purpose of providing accommodation entries. The statement of Shri Omprakash Khandelwal, Promoter of the Company was recorded where he admitted to provide accommodation entries of the Investor Companies after charging Commission @ 1.8%. The A.O. noticed that in assessment year under appeal the assessee has received Rs. 45 lakhs as share capital/share premium from the Investor Companies, therefore, reasons re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made addition of Rs. 45 lakhs under section 68 of the I.T. Act and also made addition of Rs. 90,000/- on account of Commission. The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment as well as addition on merits before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the appeal of assessee has been dismissed. 4. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and referred to PB-2 which is reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment and submitted that reasons are borrowed satisfaction and that A.O. did not apply his mind to the information received from Investigation Wing, therefore, reopening of the assessment is invalid and bad in Law. He has referred to objections filed by assessee to the reopening of the assessment Dated 27.06.2017 [PB-4] in which the assessee has requested the A.O. to provide copy of statement of Shri Shirish C. Shah and Shri Om Prakash Khandelwal, copy of the assessment order of Investor Company, copy of the Bank account of Investor Company and whether action have been taken under section 148 in case of other parties also. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also referred to PB-9 which is the Order of the A.O. Dated 17.07.2017 dism....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the ITAT, Indore Bench dismissed the Departmental appeals. He has submitted that the Order of the Indore Bench of ITAT have been confirmed by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court by dismissing the Departmental appeal. In the case of PCIT vs., Chain House International Pvt. Ltd., 98 taxmann.com 47 (MP) in which it was held that "once genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the Investors are established, no addition could be made as cash credit on ground that shares were issued at excessive premium." He has submitted that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court have been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP of the Department in the matter of PCIT vs., Bharat Securities (P.) Ltd., reported in [2020] 113 taxmann.com 32 (SC). Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the ITAT, Delhi C-Bench in the case of INS Finance & Investment P. Ltd., New Delhi vs., ITO, Ward-12(3), New Delhi in ITA.No.9266/Del./2019 for the A.Y. 2010-2011 considered the identical issue of reopening of the assessment and addition on merit in respect of the same Investor Company M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd., based on the statement of same persons Shri Shirish C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Company also made a statement. Therefore, addition was correctly made against the assessee. The A.O. rejected the explanation of assessee because of the findings given by the Investigation Wing. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the statement of Shri Omprakash Khandelwal was confronted to the assessee by referring to part statement in the show cause notice Dated 30.08.2017 and that assessee did not produce Director of the Investor Company, therefore, addition is rightly made by the authorities below. The Ld. D.R. relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., 13 taxmann.com 48 (SC) in which meager income declared by Investor was considered against the assessee because assessee failed to explain the creditworthiness of the Investor Company. He has also relied upon Judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs., NR Portfolio Private Limited [2014] 42 taxmann.com 338 (Del.), Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd., ITA.No.342 of 2011and NDR Promoters Private Limited ITA.No.49 of 2018. The Ld. D.R, therefore, submitted that authority below rightly confirmed the addition. 5.1. The Ld. D.R. also filed copy of the Order of SEBI Dated 04.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., such statements were not supplied by the A.O. stating that they are confidential in nature. Since these statements were recorded at the back of the assessee and have not been supplied to the assessee for filing an objection or to seek for cross-examination of their statements, therefore, such statements cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214 SC). This was the sole basis for the authorities below to doubt the explanation of assessee, however, the material found during the course of search in the case of above persons have not been confronted to the assessee and their statements were also not supplied to the assessee, therefore, same cannot be the basis to reject the explanation of assessee. The Ld. D.R. referred to the notice issued by the A.O. Dated 30.08.2017 to say that statement of Shri Omprakash Khandelwal was confronted to the assessee. This fact is not correct because the A.O. in his notices has only referred to part of the statement in the notice, but, it is a fact that A.O. never supplied the statements of above two ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessing officer even failed to provide opportunity of cross examination in case he wanted to rely on any such statement. 17. He further submitted that the entire premise of the Assessing Officer is for disbelieving the entire share application money of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- is based on statement of Shri Omprakash Khandelwal. However, now the statement was later on retracted and had also come up for consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Bharat Securities Pvt. Ltd. and this judgment had come up for consideration in the appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Chain House International Pvt. Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 110 to 115 of 2018 dated 7th Aug 2018] wherein the credential of the share holder company M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd. (now known as M/s. Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd.) were found to be genuine by three consecutive authorities right from CIT(A), ITAT and Hon'ble High Court. The main thrust of Ld. AR's argument was that since the very same company has already been scrutinized and examined in great depth by Hon'ble High Court, there remains no doubt over the veracity of share capital of Rs. 2.50 cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avoid the rigors of the deeming provision. By 'identity' it means that the person/entity must have actual existence which is legally recognized. The word 'creditworthiness' in simple terms means the resources to pay money (investment in the present case) i.e. the person/entity should have necessary funds to pay. Now it is not necessary that those funds must be own funds or out of earnings but same could also be in the nature of borrowings. The sum and substance is that there should be explainable means in the hands of the investor. The last ingredient is 'genuineness' which apparently means that entire transaction must be real and there should not be any element of collusiveness or sham. Once these pre-requisites of section 68 are satisfied, the can be no case of any addition in the hands of the assessee. 21. When we examine the facts of the present case on the touchstone of pre-requisite of section 68, we find that M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd. is a listed company and as such there can hardly be any dispute with regard to identity of the party which is subject to stringent of scrutiny by another statutory body SEBI during the listing process. Moreover, the appellant has p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the observation of the Tribunal in that case for the sake of better appreciation for our case also are reproduced hereunder: "3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has received share application money and share premium amounting to Rs. 30 Crores in A. Y. 2012-13 and Rs. 25 Crores during for assessment year 2013-14. The details of share application money received during the year under consideration are as under : SN Name F. Y. 2012-13 Amount in Rs. F. Y. 2013-14 Amount in Rs. 1 M/s. Prraneta Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Later named as M/s. Aadhaar Venture India Ltd. PAN NO 15,75,00,000 25,00,00,000 2 M/s. Dhanus Technologies Ltd. PAN: AABCD3429L 9,75,00,000 3 M/s. Emporis Projects Ltd. PAN NO AABCN0273G 3,00,00,000 4 M/s. L. N. Polyesters Ltd. ( Later named as M/s. L N Industries India Ltd.) PAN NO AAACC4102B 75,00,000 5 M/s. Shri Ganesh Spinners Ltd. ( Later named as M/s. Yantra Natural Resources Ltd.) PAN NO AACCS4221Q 75,00,000 Total 30,00,00,000 25,00,00,000 6. The Directors and the four investor companies....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of shares. He also stated that he did not know Bharat Securities (P) Ltd. or its CA. He disowned his earlier statement and stated that the same was recorded under fear. An opportunity to cross examine was granted to the assessee company which was availed by the assessee company. Page-25 21. Shri Omprakash Anandilal Khandelwal, the then director of Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd. appeared before CIT (A) and his statement was recorded wherein he stated that his company was not engaged in any business of providing any accommodation entries. He also stated that SCS was not controlling the business of his company. He was only a financial consultant. He further submitted that it was not correct that SCS was appointing dummy directors for his company. Regarding investment in Bharat Securities (P) Ltd. he categorically stated that prior to investing the fund in Bharat Securities (P) Ltd. necessary enquiries were made and two directors of the company namely Shri Jils Raichand Madan and Shri. Subramanya Kusnur visited Delhi and discussed the matter of investment with the directors of Bharat Securities (P) Ltd. namely Shri Naresh Kumar. He also stated that the due dil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns and record their statements and provide an opportunity of cross examination to the appellant company as per law, rule and procedure. The question, therefore, arose as to which of the two statements i.e. one recorded earlier and the other recorded by the CIT(A) herself deserves reliance. After considering the entire scenario of the case the CIT(A) found that the earlier statements did not merit acceptance for the reasons such as earlier statements were recorded behind the back of the assessee and also behind the back of the AO. No opportunity of cross examination was allowed despite specific and repeated requests. Even the opportunity of cross examination once sought to be provided was immediately snatched. The earlier statements were recorded much before the search on the appellant company. Bharat Securities was not in the picture and was not an issue during these statement. In such statements non had named Bharat Securities. We also observe that the Ld. CIT(A) held that the statements recorded by her are more authentic in all respect. Direct questions regarding investment in Bharat Securities were put up and replied. Books of accounts were produced and examined. Investment foun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time of making investment in Bharat Securities. Now two other directors of the same company namely Sh. Jils Raichand Madan and Sh. Omprakash Anandilal Khandelwal appeared before me and their statements were recorded. Both of them were directors of Aadhaar Ventures at the time of making the investment in Bharat Securities. Their tatements have already been discussed in the earlier paras and to avoid any repetition I simply want to reiterate that the present statements given by both the directors of Aadhaar Ventures before me are totally confirmatory and corroborative to the earlier statement of Somabhai Sunderbhai Meena recorded by the AO during the assessment proceedings". 32. The AO had stated at various places in the assessment order that the share capital has been received from paper companies. CIT(A) examined the issue and held as under: "I find that the position in the present case is otherwise. All the five companies have produced the books of accounts. There is an audit reports. All the investors have appeared personally. The books of accounts were examined thoroughly and I find that such books of accounts contain purchases and sales transactions, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RTGS towards share capital evidencing sufficient availability of funds on the date of investment. There is no cash deposits before issue of RTGS and none of the entries are found to have been made out of the assessee's own account in this bank statement. Therefore genuineness of transaction is not to be doubted. The share of the assesse company was duly allotted to the investor company, which creates legal right of the investor. Unless proven otherwise with some documentary evidence, it cannot be alleged that all the apparent is not real who alleges to be so. It cannot be alleged merely on the basis of apprehensions and on third party statement, without allowing cross examination and bringing any concrete material on record to show that the money invested is assessee's money. 86. All the notices issued by the Revenue Authorities, i.e. investigation Wing, Assessing Officer and CIT(A) to this company were served and duly complied by the said company. We find that said company is a listed company and duly complying with all the statutory requirement of SEBI and Stock Exchange. The assessee has filed copy of share application and confirmation submitted of the said company ( PB....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the assessee company and said opportunity was denied to the assessee even the assessee has reached at Mumbai on given date. The AO is required to allow the opportunity of cross examination, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 13 STD 805 (SC). 88. We further observed that the Ld.CIT(A) having convinced with this serious injustice rightly decide to summon the witness on whose statements the AO had placed reliance without giving the opportunity of cross examination to the assessee. All the witness appeared before the CIT(A) and they were examined by her and their statements were recorded and opportunity of cross examination was given to the appellate company. From careful perusal of such statement and logical analyses of thereof we are convinced that there statements were found to be strongly supporting the explanation and stand of the assessee company against the made by the AO u/s. 68 of Act. We also find that the Ld. CIT(A) send these statement and other relevant evidence for examination, verification and comments of the AO providing due opportunity to him. However, AO and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) and he had denied of any accommodation entries provided, in his statement recorded by the CIT(A), his denial in invoking in any accommodation activities are placed at paper book page No. 303 to 311 and also reflected at page No. 229 to 234 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the statement of both the directors and third parties recorded by the CIT(A) were provided to the AO for his comments ( second para last four line of page No. 130 of CIT(A) order and the AO submitted his comments and comments on the statement of directors and third parties were filed by the CIT(A) ( refer paper book page No. 313 to 322, page No. 144-146, ( OAK) 161-162 (SCS) 224-213, (CKS) and 224-225 (Jajoo) of the order of CIT(A). However, no adverse comments appears to have been made by the AO on these statements except merely saying that statement cannot be recorded at this stage. 92. In our considered opinion as per sub section (4) of section 250 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) before disposing any appeal may make such further any enquire as he thinks fit, or he may direct the AO to make such enquiry and to report the result of the same thus according to this provisions the CIT(A) is empowered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any evidence on record that the amounts of share application money received from Aadhar Ventures India Ltd., Dhanus Technologies Ltd., M/s. Emporis Projects Ltd., L.N. Polyester Ltd. and M/s. Yantra Natural Resources Ltd. are merely accommodation entries. As mentioned earlier, the AO has acted merely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing. Therefore, the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT Vs. Peoples General Hospital Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 65 )MP), (2013) 216 Taxman 320(MP)/(2013) 35 Taxmann.com 444 (Madhya Pradesh) is squarely gives shelter to the assessee, wherein it was held that where the assessee establishes the identity of share applicant, burden of proving creditworthiness was not on assessee. 122. In the light of above discussion, we held that the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs. 30 crores by treating the share application money received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Therefore, we are in agreement with the findings of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the same, as there was no case for making such addition either on protective basis or on substantive basis. Since, we have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e knew BSPL and its Directors. He had visited their residence and also visited business premises of its sister concerns. He stated that Shrish Chandrakant Shah was their financial consultant and he did not know Shri Sawan Kumar Jajoo. His company had made genuine investment in BSPL. He also denied to have received or collected any cash from anybody in exchange of RTGS made to BSPL for subscribing share capital. He further stated that the earlier affidavit was filed under fear and pressure. 20. After considering the entire factual scenario of the case, the appellate authority found that the earlier statements did not merit acceptance for the reasons such as earlier statements were recorded behind the back of the assessee and also behind the back of the AO. No opportunity of cross examination was allowed despite specific and repeated requests. The earlier statements were recorded much before the search on the appellant company. BSPL was not in the picture and was not an issue during these statements. In such statements none had named BSPL and held that the statement recorded by the CIT (Appeals) are more authentic in all respect and held as under :- "I examined this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent and source thereof. The AO had never disagreed with the various evidences and documents submitted before him by the director of the investor company." 23. After considering the statement of Shri Somabhai Sunderbhai Meena, Director of major investor company namely M/s. Aadhar Ventures India Ltd. which was recorded by the AO during assessment proceedings, the CIT(A) arrived to the following findings :- "The appellant company had purchased one director of Aaadhaar Ventures namely Shri Somabhai Sunderbhai Meena before the AO during assessment proceedings. He confirmed that his company had invested a sum of Rs. 40.75 crores in the share capital of the appellant company in Fys. 2011-12 and 2012-13. he produced the books of account of the company and was thoroughly examined by the AO. This investment was found recorded in the books of account as verified by the AO. He explained the source of investments with reference to the books of account. Such source was then examined by the AO also obtained copies of the necessary ledger accounts with reference to the source of investments. He explained that his company was never engaged in providing accommodation entire and on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quests during assessment proceedings. I hold that reliance on statements without cross examination is against the settled principle of natural justice. Even otherwise SCS and others have appeared before me and admitted that SCS was not managing and controlling these companies for the purpose of providing accommodation entries. All the companies are engaged in the real business having substantial turnover, paying rent, salaries, electricity bill etc. One of the companies is also paying excise duty and sales tax. Some of the companies have taken secured loans from banks. As I understand the reference to key associates could be the employee of SCS namely Chandan Kumar Singh. In the statement recorded by me he has denied all such allegations. He has admitted that SCS was not involved in any business of providing accommodation entries and nor he has ever seen SEC Controlling these five companies. Hence I do not agree with the conclusion arrived at by the AO." 51. The learned ITAT after due examination of the order of CIT (Appeals) and the documents on record insofar as identity creditworthiness, genuineness of transaction of M/s. Aaadhaar ventures (I) Ltd, M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, the same has been established beyond any doubt and there should not have been any question or dispute about premium paid by the investors therefore, unless there is a limitation put by the law on the amount of premium, the transaction should not be questioned merely because the assessing authority thinks that the investor could have managed by paying a lesser amount as Share Premium as a prudent businessman. The test of prudence by substituting its own view in place of the businessman's has not been approved by the Supreme Court in the decisions of CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 and J.K. Woollen Mfg. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC). 55. The question of share premium has been considered by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anshika Consultants (P.) Ltd.[2015] 62 taxmann.com 192 wherein it was held thus :- "The onus cast upon the assessee under Section 68 of the Act to satisfy the department about the true identity of an investor, its creditworthiness and genuineness of a transaction was explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., [2008] 216 CTR 195,. Whilst, the AO acted legitimately in enquiring into the matte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hands M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd. (now known as M/s. Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd.) is explained and the company was not engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries. In fact, Sh. Omprakash Khandelwal himself, in that case, has categorically affirmed the genuineness of the affairs of M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd. It is relevant to mention that in the said case, the alleged nexus of Shirish C Shah with Investor Company was also examined and it was found that Shrish C Shah was not even controlling the said concern. After examining the entire gamut of facts in the light of decision of Hon'ble MP High Court, there remains no shred of doubt in our mind that M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd. is a genuine concern and veracity and authenticity of share capital received by the appellant from the said investor cannot be questioned. 25. Further, the issue of share premium as raised by Ld. DR also gets dispelled by above the decision of Hon'ble High Court wherein it has been held that issuance of share at premium is prerogative of the board and wisdom of the investor. Moreover, in absence of any prohibition with regard to share premium in the Income tax Act, 1961 as relevant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....36 (Del) and Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom). It was held by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court that Explanation 3 to section 147 will not applicable if no addition is made in respect of issue which was subject matter of notice u/s 148. 30. In the present case, the reasons were recorded only with respect to issue of share of capital of Rs. 2.50 crores from M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd. (now known as M/s. Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd.) and same having been deleted by us, the remaining addition of Rs. 5,12,40,000/- has no legs to stands and is hereby ordered to be deleted. 31. However, for sake of completeness and keeping in mind the gravity of issue, we feel appropriate to decide the legality of additions made over and above the reasons recorded in the light of scope of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. As mentioned earlier, the provisions of section 147 are potent and its application is restricted to deserving cases having satisfied the defined criteria i.e. existence tangible material evidencing escapement of income and application of mind. Further, the act has inbuilt checks and balances to ensure proper exercise of power u/s 147....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to make this addition of Rs. 52.91 crores. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee against the Department by Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs., CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Del.) in which in para 18 it was held as under : "We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs., Jet Airways (I) Limited [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). We may also note that the heading of section 147 is "income escaping assessment" and that of section 148 "issue of notice where income escaped assessment". Sections 148 is supplementary and complimentary to section 147. Sub-section (2) of section 148 mandates reasons for issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer and subsection (1) thereof mandates service of notice to the assessee before the Assessing Officer proceeds to assess, reassess or re-compute the escaped income. Section 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the Assessing Officer that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. All these conditions are required to be fulfilled to assess or reassess the escaped income charge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of the Ld. Counsel and find ourselves in agreement with same. The intention of legislature behind enacting provisions of section 147 is not to create a parallel assessment proceeding akin to regular assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The purpose of section 147 is to catch in the tax net income escaping assessment based on tangible material. The requirement of tangible material and approval u/s 151 is to keep check on arbitrary exercise of power u/s 147 which necessarily means that assessing officer cannot convert reassessment proceedings into regular scrutiny proceedings at his/her sweet will. It goes without saying that Explanation cannot defeat the intention and purpose of a section and as such the application of Explanation 3 will have to be in accordance with checks and balances which are applicable at the time of issuance of notice u/s 148. 35. In the present case, in respect of share capital of Rs. 5,12,40,000/- received from 18 parties, the assessing officer initiated fresh enquiry during the course of reassessment proceedings on the basis of books of account of the appellant. There is no dispute that very same material was in existence when assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hare capital/premium to various parties based on the statements of Shri Omprakash Khandelwal and Shri Shirish C. Shah and dismissed Departmental appeal confirming the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the additions on merits. The Order of the Indore Bench of ITAT has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court and ultimately, the SLP of the Department have been dismissed confirming the Order of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court. Since the identical issue have been examined by various Benches of the Tribunal on identical facts and addition on merit have been deleted which is also confirmed by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, in our view the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid decisions. We may also note that apart from the above findings of the different Benches of the Tribunal, it is an undisputed fact that assessee produced documentary evidences before the A.O. to establish that assessee has received genuine share capital/premium from the Investor Company. The documentary evidences have not been doubted by the authorities below. The Investor Company has declared income of Rs. 173.55 Lacs in....