M/s. A One Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., , Raniganj v. DCIT, Central Circle - 4(3), , Kolkata

ITSSA 89/KOL/2018 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 8923516 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AAHCA2642N
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITSSA 89/KOL/2018
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant M/s. A One Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., , Raniganj
Respondent DCIT, Central Circle - 4(3), , Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 15-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 25-09-2019
First Hearing Date 25-09-2019
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 14-09-2018
Judgment Text
I .T.(SS)A. NOS. 89 & 90/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-2011 & 2 011-2012 M/S. A ONE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LIMITED 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 89 & 90/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 M/S. A ONE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LIMITED ............ .............................APPELLANT A/67 BY LANE GURU TEJ BAHADUR MARG NSB ROAD SCHOOL MORE RANIGANJ WEST BENGAL-713 347 [PAN: AAHCA 2642 N] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...... .........RESPONDENT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3) KOLKATA APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI A.K. NAYAK CIT (D.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : SEPTEMBER 25 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 15 2019 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP VICE-PRESIDENT :- THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 21 KOLKATA BOTH DATED 27.07.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2010-11 & 2011- 12 AND SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED THEREIN ARE COMMON THE SAME HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A SINGL E CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE SOLITARY COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS RELATES TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONF IRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY TR EATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT 1961. I .T.(SS)A. NOS. 89 & 90/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-2011 & 2 011-2012 M/S. A ONE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LIMITED 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY W HICH BELONGS TO BHALOTIA GROUP. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER S ECTION 132 WAS CONDUCTED ON 01.12.2015 IN THE CASES BELONGING TO B HALOTIA GROUP INCLUDING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN PURSUANT TO THE SAID ACTION NOTICES UNDER SECTION 153A WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE YEARS UNDER CON SIDERATION WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 15.02.2017 DECLARING THE SAME TO TAL INCOME OF NIL AS DECLARED IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME ORIGINALLY FILED UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION CERTAIN BANK ACCOUNTS WERE FOUND WHICH REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.1 55 00 000/- AND RS.1 00 0 0 000/- DURING THE YEARS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011 -12. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CAPACIT Y OF THE CONCERNED SHARE APPLICANTS AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE RELEVANT TRANSACTIONS. NOTICES UNDER SECTION 131 WERE ALSO ISSUED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS FOR CROSS EXAMINATION. THE SA ID NOTICES HOWEVER EITHER RETURNED UN-SERVED OR REMAINED UN-COMPLIED W ITH. THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT PRODUCE THE CONCERNED SHARE APPLICAN TS FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN AN OPPORTUNITY IN THIS REGARD WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE WR ITTEN SUBMISSION MADE ON 22.12.2017 IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT T HE CONCERNED SHARE APPLICANTS COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER BECAUSE OF SOME INCONVENIENCE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANS ACTIONS INVOLVING THE PAYMENT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WERE ROUTED THRO UGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS OF SHARE APPLICANTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUPPORT AN D SUBSTANTIATE THE SAID SUBMISSION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE AS SESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH WHICH COULD SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING RECEIPT OF SHA RE APPLICATION MONEY WERE NOT GENUINE. THESE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE WERE NOT I .T.(SS)A. NOS. 89 & 90/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-2011 & 2 011-2012 M/S. A ONE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LIMITED 3 FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE F OLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- (I) MERE FILING OF DOCUMENTS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE ROUTED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS WOULD NOT SUFFICE T O PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. A TRANSACTION PRIMA FACIA MAY APPEAR GENUINE. BUT ONE SHOULD HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE MOTIVE BEHIND SUCH TRANSACTIONS. (II) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD NO BUSINESS OR INCOME GENERATION ACTIVITY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS THE PRECEDING YEARS. (III) NO ANSWER HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO T HE QUESTION WHY THE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE PAID MONEY FOR TH E EQUITIES OF A CLOSELY HELD COMPANY THAT HAD LITTLE INCOME GENERATION ACTIVITY AND THAT TOO AT A PREMIUM OF UP TO RS.90/- PER SHARE. (IV) THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE ALSO FAILED TO REPL Y WHY THEY HAD INVESTED IN THE EQUITIES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y AT A HIGH PREMIUM OF UP TO RS.90/- PER SHARE. (V) NO PRUDENT PERSON WOULD PUT HIS MONEY AT STAKE IN THE EQUITIES OF A CLOSELY HELD COMPANY WHICH HAD LITTLE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND FROM WHICH HE WOULD GET NO RETURN. (VI) IN SUCH CASES THE AGREEMENT ABOUT REAL TRANSA CTIONS TAKES PLACE IN SECRET AND DIRECT EVIDENCE ABOUT SUC H DIRECT TRANSACTION/AGREEMENT WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES. (VII) THE RESULT OF THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE DESIGNED IN A WAY THAT UNACCOUNTED MONEY OR CASH WAS BROUGHT IN THE B OOKS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EITHER IN THE FORM OF EQUITIES OR UNSECURED LOAN THROUGH MULTIPLE LAYERS. (VIII] EVERY SINGLE CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BANK ACCOUN TS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS IS FOLLOWED BY A CORRESPONDING DE BIT ENTRY OF EQUIVALENT AMOUNT ON THE VERY SAME DAY. THE ASSE SSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THIS ISSUE IS IRRELEVANT. BUT THIS I SSUE IS VERY MUCH RELEVANT. THIS ISSUE COUPLED WITH THE FACT THA T ALL THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES HAD MEAGRE INCOME CLEARLY PR OVES THAT THESE COMPANIES WERE MERELY USED AS FRONTS TO ROUTE UNACCOUNTED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE GARB OF EQ UITIES THROUGH MULTIPLE LAYERS (IX) MERE FILING OF COPIES OF ITRS / BANK STATEMENT S/ ACCOUNTS OF THE SUBSCRIBERS WOULD NOT ABSOLVE THE A SSESSEE FROM THE COMPLICITY OF INTRODUCING UNACCOUNTED MONE Y IN HIS BOOKS IN THE GARB OF EQUITIES. I .T.(SS)A. NOS. 89 & 90/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-2011 & 2 011-2012 M/S. A ONE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LIMITED 4 (X) THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN REASONABLE AND SUFFICIEN T OPPORTUNITIES TO PRODUCE ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS WHIC H HE FAILED TO DO. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO EXPLAIN TH E INCONVENIENCE IN PRODUCING THE SHARE A PPLICANTS FO R VERIFICATION OF GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE APPLICANTS. (XI) IT IS TRUE THAT WHEN TRANSACTIONS ARE THROUGH CHEQUES IT LOOKS LIKE REAL TRANSACTIONS. BUT ONE SHOULD LOOK B EHIND THE TRANSACTIONS AND FIND OUT MOTIVE BEHIND TRANSACTION S MERE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY THROUGH CHEQUE DOES NOT RENDER A TRANSACTION GENUINE. (XII) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE REASONS FO R NON- SERVICE OF LETTERS/SUMMONS TO THE SHAREHOLDING COMP ANIES WHICH WERE DESPATCHED AT THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE. I T SHOWS THAT THESE COMPANIES ONLY EXIST ON PAPER AND THEY H AVE NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY AT ALL. IT RAISED QUESTION MARK O VER THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINES S OF THE SHAREHOLDERS (XIII) THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN A REASONABLE AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE SHAREHOLDERS BUT HE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY OF THEM CITING INCONVENIENCE. THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED WHAT INCONVENIENCE IT WOULD HAVE IN P RODUCING THE SHARE APPLICANTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS THEREFORE F AILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS. (XIV) THE SHARE APPLICANTS/ SHARE HOLDERS M/S BGS C REDIT PVT. LID. M/S. SUBHRASHI DEALCOM PVT. LTD. M/S. T OPLAKE COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. AND M/S. YASH COMMOSALES PVT. LTD. HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED US SHELL COMPANIES BY THE INVE STIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.1 55 00 000/- AND RS.1 00 0 0 000/- RECEIVED DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT SATISF ACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 AND ADDITIONS T O THAT EXTENT WERE MADE BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE AN ORDER DATED 27.12.2017. I .T.(SS)A. NOS. 89 & 90/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-2011 & 2 011-2012 M/S. A ONE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LIMITED 5 3. AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER UNDER SECTION 153A/143(3) APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND SINCE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 WERE NOT SUSTAINABLE WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HE PROCEEDED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 INTER ALIA FOR THE FOLLOWING IDENTICAL REASONS GIVEN IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDERS:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1 55 00 000/- (RS.1 00 00 000/- F OR A.Y. 2011-12) AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT 1961. AFTER AN EXHAUSTIVE DISCUSSION AND ELABORATIN G THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL MATRIX I FIND THAT THE LD. AO HA S HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF HAVING RAISED SHARE A PPLICATION MONIES WAS TO BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AN D WAS TO BE ASSESSED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF TH E I T ACT. THE LD. AO HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF FINDINGS AND THERE IS IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW NO FURTHER REQU IREMENT FOR ELABORATION FROM THIS FORUM. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS T HERE ARE ELABORATE AND DIRECT EVIDENCE TO CLEARLY INDICATE T HAT AT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT WER E MERELY ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIVI NG A LEGAL FACADE TO THE MONEYS WHICH WERE ENTERING THE APPELL ANT'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE GRAB OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. I ALSO AGREE WITH THE LD. AO THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSMENT WERE BASED ON INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS AS THE ENTIRE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS LOCATED ON THE BASIS OF THE SEARCH ACTION AND THEREFORE TH E FINDINGS OF THE LD. AO ARE ALSO BASED ON INCRIMINATING DETAILS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH OPERATION. THEREFOR E NONE OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLAN T IN SO FAR AS STATING THAT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH TO WARRANT ANY ADDITIONS C OME TO THE ASSISTANCE OF THE APPELLANT. THESE ARGUMENTS ARE AC CORDINGLY REJECTED. I ALSO HAVE TO RECORD THAT THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF TH E CASE CLEARLY POINTS OUT THAT THE CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FROM THE CONTRIBUTORS OF SHARE CAPITAL/SHARE PREMIUM WERE FROM PERSONS WHO DID NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO BE CREDITWORTHY AND COULD NOT ESTABLI SH THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TH E ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I .T.(SS)A. NOS. 89 & 90/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-2011 & 2 011-2012 M/S. A ONE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LIMITED 6 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS AGREED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS INVOLVED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND VIDE ITS ORDER DATED MAY 10 2019 PASSED IN IT(SS)A NO. 91/KOL/2018 THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL DELETED THE SIMILAR ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BY TR EATING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 AFTER DISCUSSING AND DELIBERATING UPON THE ARGUMENTS RAIS ED BY BOTH THE SIDES AND THE RELEVANT CASE LAWS CITED IN SUPPORT IN PARA GRAPHS NO. 5 TO 7 OF ITS ORDER WHICH ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- 5. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH REVEALED THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SINCE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION BY TREATING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH THE SAME IS VERY MUCH WITHIN THE SCOPE OF A SSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 153A. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF THE CONC ERNED APPLICANTS AS WELL AS ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE RELEVANT TRANSACTIONS INSPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPP ORTUNITY AFFORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. H E CONTENDED THAT THE PRIMARY ONUS THAT LAY ON THE ASSESSEE THUS WAS NOT DISCHARGED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER BY TREATING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS). 6. IN THE REJOINDER THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH WAS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY REFLE CTED IN THE SAID ACCOUNT WAS DULY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE- SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME . HE CONTENDED THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT THEREFORE DI D NOT CONSTITUTE ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AND IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY OTHER INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONF IRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BY TREATING THE SHARE APPLICAT ION MONEY AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 IS NOT SUS TAINABLE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOW I .T.(SS)A. NOS. 89 & 90/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-2011 & 2 011-2012 M/S. A ONE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LIMITED 7 WELL SETTLED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINALLY CO MPLETED FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR HAS BECOME FINAL BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH THERE IS NO ABATEMENT OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT AND TH E SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A WHICH IS MADE IN PURS UANT TO THE SEARCH IS LIMITED TO ASSESSING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS FOUND/DETECTED ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN THE CASE OF KERELE PAPER MILLS PVT. LIMITED (SUPRA) CITED BY TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE RELATED TO SHARE CAPITAL ISSUE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE SAME THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY TREATING THE SHARE CAPITAL AS UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 WAS HELD TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE BY TH E HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT. IN THE CASE OF SALASAR STOCK BROK ING LIMITED (SUPRA) IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH C OURT THAT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS PRE-REQUISITE BEFORE POWE R COULD HAVE BEEN EXERCISED UNDER SECTION 153A AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153A TO REOPEN TH E CONCLUDED CASES WHEN THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE DID NOT DISCLOSE ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. 5. AS THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE YEARS U NDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS REL EVANT THERETO INCLUDING THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY BOTH THE SIDES ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF A.Y. 2012-13 WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FO R A.Y. 2012-13 AND DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MO NEY BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68. 6. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON NOVEMBER 15 2019. SD/- SD/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER V ICE-PRESIDENT KOLKATA THE 15 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 COPIES TO : (1) M/S. A ONE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LIMITED A/67 BY LANE GURU TEJ BAHADUR MARG NSB ROAD SCHOOL MORE RANIGANJ WEST BENGAL-713 34 7 (2) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3) KOLKATA I .T.(SS)A. NOS. 89 & 90/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-2011 & 2 011-2012 M/S. A ONE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LIMITED 8 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-21 KOLKA TA (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.