OD 18 v. BHAWANI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD

Director of the assessee company Sri Anup Kr. Lakhotia appeared on the scheduled date of hearing and informed that he is also the Director of the share applicant of the assessee company i.e. Samsung Estate Pvt. Ltd Company. A statement on oath of Sri Anup Kr. Lakhotia is taken u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act. In the sworn statement when he was asked to inform about the companies where he was director. He produced a list of companies downloaded from ROC website that shows that he is director of total thirteen companies. He was asked to name the promoter directors of the company Samsung Estate Pvt. Ltd Company. He failed to remember the names. Then he was asked whether he had ever heard the name of Ramesh Poddar or not. He flatly replied ‘No’. In this context it may be said that Sri Anup Lakhotia stated that he became Director of Samsung Estate Pvt. Ltd Company in the year 2012. Whereas the report of the Investigation wing shows that Ramesh Poddar was Director of the company Samsung Estate Pvt. Ltd Company upto 1st September 2010. So it is surprising to note that the Managing Director of the assessee company never heard the name of Ramesh Poddar. We further find that during the course of Remand proceedings the director of the share applicant company as well as the appellant company, Shri Anup Lakhotia appeared before the AO and his statement was recorded on oath on 09.04.2019 wherein, Shri Anup 4 Lakhotia also stated that the source of funds of M/s Samsung Estates Pvt Ltd were already filed in the paper book and that shares issued to M/s Samsung Estates Pvt Ltd were still held by M/s Samsung Estates Pvt Ltd only. The share applicant company is active and regularly files its income tax returns. As per the details tabulated by the AO in his Remand Report, M/s Samsung Estates Pvt Ltd received such funds from the following 14 entities and the following documents regarding the 14 entities were submitted by the appellant during the course of Remand proceedings: Statement on oath Statement on oath taken on 05-04- 2019. Anup Kr. Lakhotia Sl. No. Name of the Co./party Money given to Samsung through Bank Income of the Company/party during the 133(6) Reply received Documents furnished

1. Anup Kumar Lakhotia 10,00,000 26,04,745/- 25-02- 2019 Yes

2. UtkarshVanijya (P) Ltd. 20,00,000 3,794/- 25-02- 2019

3. Parimal Distributors (P) Ltd 15,00,000 NIL 25-02- 2019

4. Tirupati Stocist & Traders (P) Ltd. 15,00,000 Returned not field for A/Y 2012-13 25-02- 2019

5. Ability Dealers Pvt. Ltd 10,00,000 Returned not field for A/Y 2012-13 25-02- 2019 Returned back with postal remarks Not Known Returned back with postal remarks Not Known Returned back with postal remarks insufficient address Returned back with postal remarks Not Known Dhankalash Vanijya (P) Ltd.

6. 10,00,000 NIL 25-02- 2019 Returned back with postal Computation copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC Copy of ITR, Computation. Copy of and Profit and balance sheet Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC Strike off Strike off Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC Copy of ITR, Computation. Copy of 5 remarks No such address

7. Bhawani Construction Pvt. Ltd 40,00,000 3,03,83,492/- 25-02- 2019

8. Surip Dealers Pvt. Ltd. 1,30,00,000 20,549/- 25-02- 2019

9. Neha Marketing (P) Ltd. 1,40,00,000 1,46,287/- 25-02- 2019 Returned back with postal remarks Not Known Returned back with postal remarks insufficient address

10. Esteem Tradecom P Ltd. 10,00,000 23,081/- 25-02- 2019

11. Essen Marketing Pvt Ltd. 45,00,000 NIL 25-02- 2019

12. Nanchi 15,00,000 Marketing (P) Ltd. Returned not field for A/Y 2012-13 25-02- 2019 Returned back with postal remarks Not Known Statement on oath taken on 05-04- 2019. Anup Kr. Lakhotia Director Yes Statement on oath taken on 05-04- 2019. Yogesh Director balance sheet and Profit and account. Copy of ROC from 23AC Copy of ITR, Computation. Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC Copy of ITR, Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC Copy of ITR, Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC Copy of ITR, Computation. Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC Copy of ITR, Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC and profit Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC 6

13. Bhawani Alumina Products (P) Ltd. 15,00,000 54,22,656/- 25-02- 2019 1…

14. Lakhotia Diagnostic Service (P) Ltd 20,00,000 40,059/- 25-02- 2019 Computation Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC Copy of ITR, Computation. Copy of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account. Copy of ROC from 23AC Yes Statement on oath taken on 05-04- 2019. Anup Kr. Lakhotia Director Yes Statement on oath taken on 05-04- 2019. Anup Kr. Lakhotia Director

7. We further find that in order to substantiate the share premium is charged, the assessee company also submitted the CA certificate towards calculation of intrusive value per share for FY 2010-11. We further find that the Ld. CIT(A) after discussing the entire facts of the case mentioned three main points which is as follows: i. No fresh funds have been infused in SEPL since F.Y:2008-09, which does not help the AO’s case that own unaccounted funds of the appellant company were being routed in the garb of share capital, ii. The infusion of funds in the share applicant concern, SEPL during F.Y: 2008-09 has been specifically examined and accepted by the AO in the assessment order dated 15.03.2011 for AY: 2009-10, iii. The purchase of investments was accepted by the AO in earlier F.Y’s and the sale of existing investments during AY: 2012-13 and subsequent reinvestment in the assessee company also stands accepted in view of the assessment order and appellate order for AY: 2012-13. The AO, I find, has failed to bring forth any other facts supported documentary evidences to 7 refute these facts placed by the appellant. The mere fact that funds from various entities to SEPL were paid towards the aforesaid share application on the same day or the subsequent day by SEPL, cannot render the investments made by SEPL in the assessee company during AY: 2012-13 as bogus.

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after discussing the entire facts of the case, documents placed by the assessee as well as considering the judicial orders of the ITAT as well as High Court has held thus: “The fact is that in the instant case the appellant had duly produced all the ingredients prescribed u/s 68 of the Act with respect to the share application money, and while not being bound thereafter, to produce reasons and rationale for the payment of premiums, the appellant and investor nevertheless provided all the necessary reasons to the satisfaction of a prudent assessing authority. Once this was admittedly done by the appellant, he had discharged the onus cast upon him by law. Thereafter, the onus has shifted to the AO to either accept the evidence and/or reasoning adduced by the appellant, or to reject it based upon equally compelling evidence and or reasoning bringing on record why the evidence/ reasoning adduced by the appellant could not be acceptable to a prudent person. I find that while this onus has been satisfactorily discharged by the appellant, the AO has not brought on record any reasons for controverting the evidence and reasoning adduced by the appellant. The appellant, during appeal, has cited several judgements in his 8 favour that underline the propositions of law that have driven the above discussions. These have been carefully studied and some have been cited in the earlier part of this order. Since the propositions of law relied upon in the above discussions have already become trite law, the same have been used to make the above discussions. In these circumstances and for the reasons elaborately discussed above, I cannot lend support to the action of the AO in this regard and the addition of Rs. 6,75,00,000/- u/s 68 stands deleted. This ground is therefore allowed.”

9. Going over the entire facts of the case as well as discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed.” After hearing the parties at length and perusing the order of the tribunal dated 17.01.2025 as well as the assessment order dated 26.12.2017, we do not find any substantial question of law to be formulated by us. As such, the appeal and the connected application being GA/2/2026 are dismissed. (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.) B.Pal