Sunbean Technocom Advisors Pvt. Ltd.,, New Delhi v. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4778/DEL/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 477820114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAICS5945F
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4778/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant Sunbean Technocom Advisors Pvt. Ltd.,, New Delhi
Respondent DCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 10-01-2012
Next Hearing Date 10-01-2012
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 18-12-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `G: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. NO.4778/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SUNBEAN TECHNOCOM DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ADVISORS PVT. LTD. VS. CIRCLE 9(1) NEW DELHI. 414/1 4 TH FLOOR DDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX DISTRICT CENTER JANAKPURI NEW DELHI. PAN: AAICS5945F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDEN T) APPELLANT BY: SHRI T.N. CHOPRA ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY: MS. S. MOHANTHY DR. O R D E R PER K.D. RANJAN ACCOUNTAT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06 ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S)-XII NEW DELHI. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE RE PRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1(A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE A DDITION OF RS.1 08 50 000 AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES EVEN TH OUGH THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND CONFIRM ATIONS OF THESE PERSONS THEIR ADDRESSES PERMANENT ACCOUNT N UMBERS WERE AVAILABLE AS WELL AS SHARE APPLICATION FORMS I N ORIGINAL BEARING THEIR SIGNATURES AND OTHER DETAILS HAVE BEE N FURNISHED I.T. A. NO.4778/DEL/2009 2 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THUS DISCHARGING THE ONUS OF PROOF BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 1(B) LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRONEOUSLY IGNORED THE BIN DING DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION LTD. 159 ITR 78 (SC) AND SUMATI DAYAL V CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC). LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FURTHER F AILED TO FOLLOW THE BINDING DECISIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I.E. DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE FOLLOWING CASES TA KING A CONSISTENT VIEW THAT WHEN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PLACED ON RECORD TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AN D THEIR CONFIRMATIONS AS WELL AS OTHER DETAILS LIKE SHARE A PPLICATIONS FORMS ETC. NO ADDITION U/S 68 IS JUSTIFIED: CIT V SOPHIA FINANCE LTD 205 ITR 98 (DELHI) CIT V ANTARTICA INVESTMENT LTD 262 ITR 493 (DELHI). CIT V ILLAC INVESTMENT LTD 287 ITR 135 (DELHI) CIT V MAKHNI AND TYAGI P LTD 267 ITR 433 (DELHI) CIT V LOVELY EXPORTS P LTD 299 ITR 268 (DELHI). 1(C ) THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSU E RUNS CONTRARY TO THE VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT AS LAID D OWN WHILE CONFIRMING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT I N LOVELY EXPORTS 319 ITR (STATUTES) 6. 2. LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE SUSTAINING THE IMPUGNED ADD ITION AS PER GROUND NO.1 HAS WRONGLY OBSERVED THAT INFORMAT ION AND DETAILS AS CALLED FOR BY HER ON 3.3.2009 HAVE NOT B EEN PRODUCED. SUCH DETAILS WERE DULY PRODUCED ON 12.5. 2009 DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND FIND MENTION IN TH E LETTER DATED 12.5.2009 FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 3. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.83441 U/S 57 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT REJECTING THE PRAYER OF THE APPELLANT FOR PART RELI EF OF RS.49 941 AS PER LETTER DATED 3.3.2009 FILED BEFORE HER. I.T. A. NO.4778/DEL/2009 3 2. THE FIRST ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO SUS TAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 08 50 000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE FACTS OF THE CASE STATED IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RAISED SHARE CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS.2 15 50 000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE DETAILS OF PERSONS C ONTRIBUTING SHARE CAPITAL. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.2 15 50 0 00/- FROM 41 PERSONS. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TABULATED HIS CHART REPRODUCED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE AMOUNT CONTRIBUTED TO SHARE CAPITAL DETAILS OF PAN NUMBER AND DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS WERE SHOWED. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FU RNISH BANK ACCOUNT OF 23 PERSONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROVIDED OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE PAN AND BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE PERSONS. SIN CE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF PAN AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PERSONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 08 50 000/- AS INC OME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A) SHRI PRAVEEN KAPOOR APPEARED A ND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE PLEADE D BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT IT WAS THE JOB OF THE AO TO MAKE THE EN QUIRY FROM THE SHAREHOLDERS REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTI ONS. HE PLACED RELIANCE I.T. A. NO.4778/DEL/2009 4 ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF HINDUSTAN TRADING CO. VS. CIT 263 ITR 289 (CAL) FOR THE PROP OSITION THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE MADE PROPER ENQUIRIES BEFORE COMING TO A CONCLUSION. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT CHEMICALS 256 ITR 795 WHEREIN IT H AS BEEN HELD THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS ON THE REVENUE TO FIND OUT REAL O WNERSHIP OF SHARES IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE PLEADS ITS INABILITY TO P RODUCE THE SHAREHOLDERS AND REQUEST THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE SUMMONS UNDE R SEC. 131 TO ENABLE VERIFICATION. THE AO HAS NO OPTION EXCEPT TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUEST BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER IN THE MATTER. IT WAS THEREFOR E PLEADED THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE MADE VERIFICATION BEFORE MAKING THE ADD ITION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HOWEVER UPHELD THE STAND TAKEN BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4. AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE EVEN DURING THE COU RSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT PRO DUCED MOST OF THE BANK STATEMENTS WERE NOT PRODUCED IN 1 4 CASES NO CONFIRMATION WAS SUBMITTED AND EVEN WHERE CONFIRMAT ION WAS GIVEN THE BANK STATEMENT WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TH US CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS COULD NOT BE VERIFIED EVEN DURING A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN MOST OF THE CASES WHERE BANK STATE MENT WAS PRODUCED IT HAS EMERGED THAT THE ACCOUNT HARDLY HA D ANY MONEY & JUST PRIOR TO THE INVESTMENT IN SHARE OF TH E ASSESSEES COMPANY CASH WAS DEPOSITED AND SHARE CAPITAL MONEY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEES COMPANY ON THE SAME DAY. PERUSAL OF THESE BANK ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SHARE HOLDERS SHOWS THAT THE USU AL BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT WOULD BE LESS THAN ONE LAC HOWEVER CASH OF A FEW LACS WAS DEPOSITED AS A ONE TIME TRANSACTION AN D PAID FOR THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEES COMPANY ON THE SAME DA TE THESE FACTS CERTAINLY ESTABLISH THAT IN THE ROUTINE PROCE SS THE ALLEGED I.T. A. NO.4778/DEL/2009 5 SHARE APPLICANT HAD NO CAPACITY TO PURCHASE/INVEST IN THE SHARE. HUGE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT ON THE SAME DATE AS INV ESTMENT IN THE SHARE ESTABLISHES THAT AS A ROUTINE THE ALLEGE D SHARE APPLICANT HAD NO CAPACITY AND THIS IS NOT A GENUINE TRANSACTION IT IS ALSO PERTINENT THAT NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN G IVEN BY THE ASSESSEES COMPANY AS TO WHY COMPLETE INFORMATION R EGARDING IDENTITY/GENUINENESS AND CAPACITY AHS NOT BEEN GIVE N BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. NO INFORMATION REGARDING SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE SE ACCOUNTS HAS BEEN GIVEN AT ANY STAGE. IN CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE MENTIONED (IT IS PERTINENT TO POINT THAT THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE EXAMPLES AND IN FACT THE COMPLETE DETAILS ARE NOT M ENTIONED IN THIS ORDER TO AVOID REPETITION) THE FACTS GIVEN BEL OW PROVE THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE ASSESSEES COMPANY WHEREIN SH ARE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN NAME OF THOSE WHO HA D NO CAPACITY MAKE THE SAID INVESTMENT. S.NO. NAME OF ALLEGED SHARE HOLDER BANK DETAIL DATE OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN SHARE DATE OF DEPOSIT IN BANK A/C 1. MR. VENKATESHWARA RAO BATHINA NO BANK STATEMENT 2. MR. RAMESH CHANDRA PAREKH CANARA BANK A/C NO.1078 28.06.2004 28.06.2004 3. MR. RR RAMOLIYA CITIZEN CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD. A/C NO.00777 31.07.2004 31.07.2004 4. MR. P. MAIMARAN NO BANK STATEMENT 5. M/S INDO AUTO CLINIC CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA (NO A/C NO. FOUND). 5. IN VIEW THE ABOVE IT IS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUB T THAT DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITY DURING ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE I.T. A. NO.4778/DEL/2009 6 PROCEEDINGS (CARRIED OUT OVER 15 MONTHS) THE ASSESS EE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE CAPACITY GENUINENESS AND IDENTITY OF THE SHARE HOLDER4S AND HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ONUS CAST UPON HIM. WHERE HE GAVE SOME COPIES OF BANK A/C IT IS ESTABL ISHED THAT THE ALLEGED INVESTOR HAD NO CAPACITY. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE CASE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SMT. PHOOLWAWTI DEVI [2009] 314 ITR (A.T.) 001. HENCE THE ADDITION MADE BY AO UNDER THIS HEAD IS CONFIRMED IN TOTO. 4. BEFORE US THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT OUT OF 41 SHAREHOLDERS FROM WHOM SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAD BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR 36 SHAREHOLDERS WERE EXISTING ASSESSEES O N THE RECORDS OF THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT AND THEIR PAN NUMBERS AND ASS ESSMENT DETAILS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO. AS REGARDS THE REMAINING 5 SHAREHOLDERS THEIR PAN NUMBERS WERE NOT GIVEN AS THEY WERE NOT ASSESSE D TO TAX. HOWEVER CONFIRMATIONS FROM THESE PERSONS ALONG WITH THE SOU RCE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WERE FURNISHED. THESE CONFIRMATIONS WERE FIL ED BEFORE THE AO. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED THE ONUS WHICH LAY UPON IT TO PROVE THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE SHARE APPLICANTS ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF BANK DRA FTS/CHEQUES AND BANKS ON WHICH DRAWN HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE INCOME- TAX AUTHORITIES. SHARE TRANSFER APPLICATION IN ORIGINAL CONTAINING THE PRE SCRIBED DETAILS OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES DULY SIGNED BY THE APPLICANTS A LONG WITH THEIR COMPLETE ADDRESSES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. HE FURTHER I.T. A. NO.4778/DEL/2009 7 SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FULL DETAILS REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF SHAREHOLDERS THEIR ADDRESSES AND CONFI RMATIONS OF HAVING INVESTED IN SHARE CAPITAL AND AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN REC EIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO TREAT THE SH ARE APPLICATION MONEY AS NON-GENUINE. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT F URNISHED PAN OF 5 SHAREHOLDERS COULD NOT BE A GROUND TREATING THE SHA RE APPLICATION MONEY AS NON-GENUINE. THERE IS NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THA T ONLY INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES WERE ENTITLED TO BE SHAREHOLDERS IN LIMIT ED COMPANIES. THE RELEVANT ISSUE IS THE IDENTITY OF SHAREHOLDERS AND GENUINENESS OF SHARE CAPITAL INVESTED BY THEM. IN THE CASE OF 5 SHAREHOLDERS T HEY HAVE FURNISHED THEIR CONFIRMATIONS GIVING SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS AND THEI R AFFIRMATION OF BEING SHAREHOLDERS. THUS THE ONUS WHICH LAID UPON THE A SSESSEE HAS BEEN DISCHARGED. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION LTD. 159 ITR 78 AND ALSO ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:- (I) CIT V SOPHIA FINANCE LTD 205 ITR 98 (DELHI) (II) CIT V ANTARTICA INVESTMENT LTD 262 ITR 493 (DE LHI). (III) CIT V ILLAC INVESTMENT LTD 287 ITR 135 (DELHI ) (IV) CIT V MAKHNI AND TYAGI P LTD 267 ITR 433 (DELH I) (V) CIT V LOVELY EXPORTS P LTD 299 ITR 268 (DELHI). I.T. A. NO.4778/DEL/2009 8 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED SR. DR SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THE BAN K ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES BEFORE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED. THEREFORE CRE DITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS IS NOT PROVED. THE LEARNED SR. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENT MADE IN CHEQUE IS NOT SACROSANCT. SHE PLACED REL IANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRECISION FINANCE LTD. 208 ITR 465 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT MERE PAYM ENT BY A COMPANY THROUGH CHEQUE IS NOT SACROSANCT NOR IT CAN MAKE NO N-GENUINE TRANSACTION GENUINE. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MERE FILING OF INCOME-TAX FILE NUMBER IS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF CASH CREDIT. THE CREDITOR SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED AND THERE SHOULD BE CREDITWORTHINESS. S HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KORLAY TRADING CO. LTD. 232 ITR 820. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD INTRODUCE D SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.2 15 50 000/- FROM 41 PERSONS. OUT OF THESE 41 PERSONS THE AO IDENTIFIED 28 PERSONS IN RESPECT OF WHICH BANK ACCO UNT DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED. IN CASE OF 5 PERSONS PAN NUMBER WAS NOT FURNISHED. THE AO HAD STATED THAT COMPANY HAS NOT FILED PAN NUMBER AN D BANK ACCOUNT OF THE I.T. A. NO.4778/DEL/2009 9 PERSONS DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD WAS PROVIDED TO IT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT ON PERUSAL O F BANK ACCOUNTS OF ALLEGED SHAREHOLDERS IT WAS SEEN THAT THE USUAL BA NK BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT WAS LESS THAN RS.1 00 000/-. HOWEVER CASH OF FEW LAKHS OF RUPEES WAS DEPOSITED AS A ONE TIME TRANSACTION AND PAID FOR TH E SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON THE SAME DATE. FROM THESE FACTS THE LEA RNED CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT SHARE APPLICANTS HAD NO CAPACITY TO PURCHASE/I NVEST IN SHARES. HUGE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS ON THE SAME DATE AS INVESTM ENT IN THE SHARES ESTABLISHED THAT AS A ROUTINE THE ALLEGED SHARE APP LICANTS HAD NO CAPACITY AND THEREFORE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE. THE LEAR NED CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT INFORMATION REGARDING SOURCE AND CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN AT ANY STAGE. HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE PVT. LTD. IN ORDER DA TED 15.02.2012 IN ITA NO.342 OF 2011 IN PARA 38 HAS HELD THAT THE RATIO O F A DECISION IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AND APPRECIATED IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE FACTS OF THAT CASE. SO UNDERSTOOD IT WILL BE SEEN THAT WHERE THE COMPLETE PARTICULARS OF SHARE APPLICANTS SUCH AS THEIR NAMES AND ADDRESSES INCOM E TAX FILE NUMBERS THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS SHARE APPLICATION FORMS AND SHAR EHOLDERS REGISTER SHARE TRANSFER REGISTER ETC ARE FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSI NG AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY INQUIRY INTO THE SAME OR HAS NO MATERIAL IN HIS I.T. A. NO.4778/DEL/2009 10 POSSESSION TO SHOW THAT THOSE PARTICULARS ARE FALSE AND CANNOT BE ACTED UPON THEN ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE COMPANY. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE SHARE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED BY 41 PERSONS WITH REFERENCE TO THE IDENTITY CREDITWO RTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IT IS A CASE OF PRIVATE PLACE MENT OF SHARES. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS OF THE SHARE APP LICANTS AS THEY ARE KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRECISION FINANCE LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL IS NOT SACROSANCT AND WOULD NOT MAKE NON-GENUINE TRANSACTI ON AS GENUINE. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KORLAY T RADING CO. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT MERE FILING OF INCOME-TAX FILE NUMBER OF THE CREDITOR (PAN) WAS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDIT. AT THE SAME TIME THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT HAD DISCHARGED INITIAL ONUS OF PROVING THE IDENTITY THEREFORE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DENIAL OF THE FACT THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF SO CALLED SHARE APPLICANTS BEFORE ISSUE OF THE CHEQUE. THEREFORE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS APPEARS TO BE IN DOUBT. SINCE THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE CASH CREDITS WITH REFERENCE TO THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF I.T. A. NO.4778/DEL/2009 11 DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE AO SHALL PROVIDE NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E. 7. NEXT ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.83 441/- OUT OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE EARNED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.1 86 537/- AND CLAIMED EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 83 441/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 8. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOU NT OF RS.83 441/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES WHICH WAS MANDATORILY REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERV ED THAT NO SUCH DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED/BROUGHT ON RECORD DURING THE APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS. SHE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE. 9. BEFORE US WHEN THE CASE CAME UP FOR HEARING NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EVIDENCE OR D ETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE LEARNED CI T(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.83 441/-. I.T. A. NO.4778/DEL/2009 12 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 30TH MARCH 2012. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (K.D. RANJAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 TH MARCH 2012. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT.