ITA 4756/M./2001 In this appeal for assessment year 1998-99 assessee has raised following grounds: (1) Addition of Rs. 52,23,370 under section 68 (1)The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 52,23,370 made by Assessing Officer under section 68 of Income-tax Act, 1961. (2)He further erred in this connection in holding that (a)The decision of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98 (Delhi) (FB) is applicable. (b)The appellant has not established identity of shareholders. (c)The applicability of section 68 was not before High Court in case of CIT v. Stellar Investments [1991] 192 ITR 287 (Delhi). (d)The appellant has not discharged onus cast upon it to establish genuineness of shareholders. (e)The shareholders were factitious and non-existent persons. (f)No reasons were given as to why addresses of shareholders could not be obtained. (g)The observation of Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Stellar Investments [1991] 192 ITR 287( supra) that no addition on account of issue of capital would be made in case of company is only passing observation and does not lay down any law. (3)He failed to appreciate that on appellants facts and circumstances source of receipts of share capital and share application money received b y appellant during assessment year 1998-99 aggregating to Rs. 52,23,370 stood completely, totally and fully proved and substantiated and consequently burden cast upon it in aspect of same was effectively and successfully discharged. (4)The appellant, therefore, prays that addition of Rs. 52,23,370 be held to be invalid and/or null and void and/or bad in law and/or illegal and subsequently otherwise addition be deleted. (II) Non-applicability of section 68: (1)The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that section 68 is applicable to appellant-company when it raises money as share capital application money. (2)He failed to appreciate that provision of section 68 are inapplicable to money raised as share capital and share application money. (3)The appellant therefore prays that addition be displaced on this count alone. (III) (1) learned CIT(A) erred in holding that sum of Rs. 52,23,370 is income of appellant. (2)He failed to appreciate that on appellants facts and circumstances it was not income of appellant. (3)The appellant, therefore, prays that addition be overturned on this holding alone. (IV) Levy of interest under sections 234B & 234C: (1)The Assessing Officer erred in levying interest under sections 234B & 234C in appellants case (2)The appellant prays that Assessing Officer be directed to delete imposition of interest under sections 234B & 234C. 2. main issue involved is addition of Rs. 52,23,370 made by Assessing Officer under section 68. facts of case are that while scrutinizing appeals for assessment year 1998-99 Assessing Officer had found that share capital of assessee, which is Public Ltd. Co. where shares are not quoted, has increased from Rs. 1,04,37,430 to Rs. 1,50,00,000 as on 31-3-1998. In addition to this, share application money to extent of Rs. 6,60,800 was received leading to total increase in share capital money to Rs. 52,23,370. It was found by Assessing Officer that small amounts were introduced in names of large number of persons but cheques were received in bunches in lump sum in respect of 30 to 35 persons. Assessing Officer asked to furnish confirmation in respect of shareholders which was not furnished. Further opportunities were given by Assessing Officer vide his letters dated 6-1-2000, 7-2-2000, 9-3-2000 and 28-11-2000 wherein genuineness of shareholders as well as evidence in support of share application money was asked. But there was no response during course of assessment proceedings. accountant of company Mr. Sanjay Doshi had stated that money was received from associate company of assessee namely Gujarat Savings Pvt. Ltd. (GSPL in short). Assessing Officer had also written letter to GSPL on 11-2-2000 asking them to submit details but GSPL also did not respond. Thereafter relying on decision in CIT v. Sofia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98 (Delhi) (FB), Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 52,23,370 under section 68. Before CIT(A) it was submitted by assessee that Assessing Officer had asked assessee to produce records of shareholders, like name and address, share application forms, annual return, return of allotments filed to RoC but same could not be produced as they were lost. His reply is as under: "Regarding requirement of Assessing Officer names of shareholders were submitted to him during assessment proceedings and names of shareholders were recorded in cash book which is available for verification with him. One, Shri Vishwas Bawisi residing at Dahisar(E) was handling secretarial work of company. Since Assessing Officer was insisting on other details of shareholders Mr. Sanjay Doshi, accountant went to Dahisar and collected records required by Assessing Officer. Unfortunately, on his way back from by local train he forgot to take record and got down from train at Marine Lines. Soon after he realized that he had left behind records he made FIR before Railway Police department, Mumbai and lodged complaint for loss of records. Appellant had already submitted copy of said FIR along with grounds of appeal." 3. Thereafter, it was explained to CIT(A) that GSPL was running savings scheme in which small savings from public in form of subscriptions were collected, which amounted to more than Rs. 3 crores. said subscription was refundable as per scheme. assessee-company had detailed discussion with GSPL and their subscribers about investment in equity in assessee-company. Thereafter cheques were issued towards equity contribution to assessee-company for allotment of equity shares. According to assessee, submitting before CIT(A), source or investment is fully explained. He furnished before him evidences as under: "(1) Letter of M/s. Gujarat Savings Pvt. Ltd. explaining source of payment. (2) Xerox copy of From No. 2 - Return of allotment submitted to registrar of companies during Financial Year 1997-98 amounting to Rs. 45,62,570 and during financial year 1998-99 Rs. 6,60,800. (3) Copy of annual return for financial year 31-3-1998 to prove that equity share capital was received by company. Appellant further states that though addresses of shareholders of assessment year 1998-99 could not be produced in above given situation, they have name and addresses of shareholders as on 31-3-2000 which indicates total shareholding of company. M/s. Gujarat Savings Pvt. Ltd. who contributed equity share capital reflects in audited balance sheet of M/s. Gujarat Savings Pvt. Ltd. at 31-3- 1998. balance sheet reflects following position: (1) Members subscription as on 97,53,746 1-4-1997 (2) Members subscription as on 18,38,355 31-3-1998 (3) Subscription refunded 79,15,391 break up of abovesaid subscription is as under: Amount paid to Pranland Ltd. for 52,23,370 equity contribution Balance refunded to public 26,92,021 Appellant submit herewith Xerox copy of balance sheet as at 31-3- 1998 to show above position. Appellant in course of hearing submitted names of shareholders also stated that contribution of share capital was received by cheque f r o m Gujarat Savings Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of various shareholders. Unfortunately addresses of shareholders which was submitted to RoC lost in transit as explained above." 4. copy of letter dated 6-2-2001 issued by GSPL to assessee stated t h t most of their shareholders have agreed to become shareholders of assessee-company. contents of above referred letter is as under: "In past through various savings scheme, we collected subscription from individual below Rs. 500 per member as subscription. total amount collected in past was more than Rs. 3 crores, and subscription was refunded to them as and when refund was demanded by them. This subscription was refundable as per scheme. Meanwhile we discuss your proposal for allotment of equity shares of your company who was dealing in Land business, Finance and Investment. Most of them agreed to become shareholder of your company and therefore we issued cheques on their behalf with detail of name of our subscribers with request to issue share certificate in favour of each subscriber and thus we hereby confirm that we have paid total sum on behalf of our various subscribers during FY 1997-98. Shares were handed over to shareholders through their representatives. Particulars Financial Amount Year For 1997-98 Rs. subscription of 45,62,570 shares 1998-99 Rs. 06,60,800 Rs. 52,23,370 Out of above payment, you allotted share to tune of Rs. 45,62,570.00. We are assessed to Income-tax and our G.I.R. No. Ward 4(2)37-G" 5. Before CIT(A) names of shareholders were furnished but their addresses were not furnished. It was also submitted before CIT(A) that part of share capital money was refunded to same shareholders whereas some part was refunded by way of issue of share of Pranland Housing & Finance Ltd. T h e assessee could not produce documents before Assessing Officer because they were lost for which FIR was filed on 2-12-1999. Subsequently new shareholders had purchased these shares from original shareholders referred by GSPL to assessee-company. assessee-company is in position to submit details of present shareholders who are related to GSPL but it cannot produce details of original shareholders transferred by GSPL to assessee-company. addresses of these persons would be available with GSPL. Since source of funds is explained, there was no case for addition. 6. CIT(A) did not accept contention of assessee and confirmed addition. He observed as under: "Now coming to facts of case. onus was on appellant by production of share application forms, share register, share transfer register or any other material to establish identity of shareholders to whom shares issued. appellant took plea that share application forms, share register and share transfer register have been lost for which FIR has been lodged. Incidentally, funds in this case came from Gujarat Savings Pvt. Ltd. though shares were issued in various other names on request of Gujarat Savings Pvt. Ltd. address of these persons should have been available with Gujarat Savings Pvt. Ltd. If documents had been lost then same could have been obtained from Gujarat Savings Pvt. Ltd. This has not been done and no reasons have been given as to why addresses could not be obtained. appellant could have also taken floppies from Registrar of Companies and submitted addresses. This was also not done. Therefore onus cast on appellant to establish genuineness of shareholders has not been discharged. It is not known as to whether these shareholders are existing persons or fictitious persons. It is not settled law that if assessee suppresses facts, then benefit of fact would go to revenue. In this case in absence of submission of address of alleged shareholders it is not established that shareholders were genuine. shareholders have therefore got to be treated as fictitious and non-existent persons. There cannot be valid issue of shares to non-existing persons as held in case of Sophia Finance Ltd. provisions of section 68 are therefore attracted as held in case of Sophia Finance Ltd. addition of Rs. 52,23,370 under section 68 of Income-tax Act is therefore in order and is confirmed. In result, appeal is dismissed." 7. Before us, it was submitted by learned counsel of assessee that i t could not produce details of addresses of shareholders because they were lost and FIR was filed with police on 2-12-1999. These details r e available with GSPL and Assessing Officer could have, if he really wanted, obtained details of addresses. In fact verification of addresses of shareholders was done by Assessing Officer of GSPL. As assessment of GSPL was accepted, details of shares and shareholders is therefore proved. assessee-company has only received funds from GSPL, which fact is also accepted by Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Then, there is no further onus on assessee to discharge. Source of funds is proved as coming from GSPL and identity of person is proved in case of GSPL, no further burden lie on assessee. It is on department to prove that shareholders are not existing, no such material is brought by them on record to arrive at such conclusion. 8. It was further submitted by learned Counsel for assessee that it was only through private arrangement that funds were transferred from GSPL to assessee-company. These subscribers of GSPL who wanted return of funds were refunded while those who wanted to become shareholders of assessee- company, their funds were transferred to assessee-company. Entire transactions according to learned counsel was genuine. In fact no addition was made in case of GSPL by Assessing Officer regarding these shareholders and hence, it is to be inferred that Assessing Officer of GSPL was satisfied about identity of shareholders. 9. In fact, learned counsel of assessee-company submitted that assessee-company was receiving shareholders and funds from two companies, one is GSPL and other is Gujarat Savings Unit PA Ltd. (GSUPL in short). later company was incorporated on 29-9-1988. They had floated various small savings scheme as they were carrying on business on Chit fund/Mutual benefit schemes. In these schemes, there was monetary instalment of Rs. 15 to 25 per month for about 10 to 25 months. Each member contributed ranging between 150 to Rs. 500. members were entitled to bonus and prizes, loan and refund. GSPL was incorporated in 1981 but it took over funds from GSUPL as GSUPL was banned under Money Circulation Scheme (Barring) Act. funds received by these two companies under small saving schemes were never treated as their income in their respective assessments. 10. It was further submitted by learned counsel of assessee-company that they approached two companies and proposed them to request their members to become its shareholders. Both companies agreed to convey their clients proposal to its members. As per modalities worked out, money by cheques towards share applications was directly transferred to assessee- company and after receipt of relevant share application Forms from concerned members, assessee-company would issue share certificates in favour of such members of GSUPL and GSPL was claimed that assessee- company has received in this manner, share application money as under: Assessment Previous Amount Received Year Year Received Through 1992-93 1991-92 Rs. GSUPL 52,76,700 (Includes Rs. 20,000 by way of subscription to Memorandum of Association) 1993-94 1992-93 Rs. Note(i) 20,77,460 1994-95 1993-94 Rs. GSUPL 07,97,430 1995-96 1994-95 Rs. GSPL 11,05,830 1996-97 1995-96 Rs. GSPL 07,73,390 1997-98 1996-97 Rs. Note(i) 04,06,620 1998-99 1997-98 Rs. GSPL 52,23,370 Notes: (i) Rs. 12,56,190 through GSUPL and Rs. 8,21,270 through GSPL. (ii) Rs. 3,78,470 through GSUPL and Rs. 28,150 through GSPL. fact of above payments can also be verified from said affidavits of GSPL and GSUPL at Ex. B-1 and B-2. 11. It was submitted by learned counsel that for administrative convenience of GSUPL and GSPL, consolidated cheques were issued in respect of shareholders who desired to become shareholders of assessee-company by bunching 20/30 such members in one cheque. money in respect of each shareholders did not exceed Rs. 500. payments so made were through bank accounts of two parties. accounts of two parties were in same bank for sake of convenience. 12. It was submitted by learned counsel that fact that shareholding of each shareholder is small has also been admitted by learned Assessing Officer. He had also admitted that amounts were received from GSUPL and GSPL. learned CIT(A) also admitted these facts in his appellate orders. It was further submitted by learned counsel that: "1. Upon receipt of share applications, our client would send them to qualified Company Secretary for scrutinizing same. Thereafter our client would convene meeting of its Board of Directors and allot shares to applicants whose applications were found in order. If there were any defects in applications, no allotment would be made to such members or upon such applications. 2. After allotment was made Company Secretary would prepare share certificates as well as Return of Allotment required to be filed with Registrar of Companies in Form No. 2. He would also enter minutes in minutes book regarding allotment of shares. Company Secretary would also file Annual Return with Registrar of Companies in Form Schedule V to Companies Act, 1956. 3. From said Resolutions it will be observed that share application were placed before Board and after going through applications allotment was made. said Resolutions also give direction for issue of share certificates to allottees. minutes of meetings of Board of Directors and of general meetings are statutorily recognised to be evidence of proceedings recorded therein under section 194 of Companies Act, 1956. 4. above allotments were informed to Registrar of Companies as required by section 75 of Companies Act, 1956 in Form No. 2 i.e., Return of Allotment by director of out client. Xerox Copies of said Returns were furnished to Assessing Officer during assessment/reassessment proceeding which have not even be referred to by him his order. Hereto annexed and marked Exs. E-1 to E-6 are copies of said returns of allotment. 5. list of names, addresses and occupations of allottees required by said return of allotment was attached separately till return dated 17-7- 1995 and thereafter given in floppy diskettes alongwith original return filed with Registrar of Companies. 6. As list of allottees used to be very large, normally office copy thereof was not maintained by out client. 7. said lists/computer floppies were attached to original returns of allotment can be verified from said Company Secretary Shri Vishwas K. Bavisi by calling him. 8. Not only that, list of shareholders/floppies were also furnished alongwith Annual Returns filed by our clients with Registrar of Companies which were duly certified by two of its directors as required therein. Xerox copies of said Annual Returns were furnished to Assessing Officer during assessment/reassessment proceedings which too have not been referred t o by him in his order. Hereto annexed and marked Exs. G-1 to G-7 are copies of said Annual Returns. 9. However, here too, lists being large no office copies thereof were maintained by out client. 10. annual returns too were filed on behalf of our client by Company Secretary containing full list of shareholders depicting therein names and addresses and number of shares held by each of them. 11. These facts can also be verified from said Company Secretary by calling him. 12. Our client has repeatedly requested Registrar of Companies by its letters dated 16-7-2003 and 3-9-2004 to provide lists of shareholders either printed or in floppy. Yet till date it has not received any copies of said letters. Out client had requested then Assessing Officer to call for same from Registrar of Companies. However, no effort was made by Assessing Officer to call for same and satisfy himself. 13. Our client once again hereby requests you to call complete set of returns of allotment and annual returns and satisfy genuineness of shareholders. 14. Even auditors while auditing accounts of company have verified share applications Board Resolutions for allotment, entries in books of account were in conformity with share applications received, etc. as required by Statement on Auditing Practice issued by ICAI which is mandatorily required to be followed by auditors as can be seen from Exs. I-1 to I-2 being extracts from Statement on Auditing Practices and Clarification regarding authority attached to documents issued by ICAI respectively. 15. complete set of audited accounts of out client for years consisting of notice convening Annual General Meeting, Directors Report, Auditors Report, Audited Balance Sheet, Audited Profit and Loss account together with schedules thereto as also audited Balance Sheet abstract for previous years ending 31-3-1992 to 31-3-1998 have already been filed by out client along with its return on income. 16. It would not be out of place to state here that neither books of account nor audited Balance Sheets, Profits and loss account, Auditors Reports and Balance Sheet Abstracts are disputed by Assessing Officer. In fact, they have been made use of for making additions under section 68 of Income-tax Act, 1961. When addition is itself based on audited set of accounts auditors report and audited accounts have to be accepted in full and not partially or in truncated manner. 17. verification of share capital by auditors is itself k and independent piece of evidence by competent person recognised by authorities under Companies Act as well as under I.T. Act which cannot be brushed aside lightly or ignored. 18. After approval of audited accounts by Board, they are placed before members at Annual General meetings who have approved same in their meetings which undoubtedly includes position with respect to share capital and share application. Hereto annexed and marked Exs. L-1 to L-7 are copies of minutes of Annual General Meetings where audited accounts have been approved by members. As already stated above these minutes are statutory evidence within section 194 of Companies Act, 1956." 13. In brief submissions are that accounts of assessee-company are audited, approved in AGM. Documents are submitted to RoC, details of shareholders are agreed by Assessing Officer of GSPL and GSUPL. Therefore, identity of shareholders is clearly established. 14. In support of various contentions learned AR relied on following decisions: "(1)When Account Books are destroyed by fire, Auditors Report can be relied upon. [1978] (Delhi). (2)It is proper to infer that auditors must does duty required of them. [1978] (Delhi). (3)Where ITO himself gives alternate finding that investment w s made by directors of assessee-company in name of fake shareholders, credits though can be said to be unproved cannot be held to be income of assessee-company. [1990] 38 ITJ 555. (4)When returns of creditors are accepted it shows that amount received by assessee is prima facie genuine. [1997] 223 ITR 11 (Gau.) (5)Satisfactory explanation under section 68 does not mean proof beyond reasonable doubt. [1992] 42 ITD 559 (Hyd.) (6)The difficulty on part of assessee has to be borne in mind by department and should not be under-estimated or taken advantage of. [1963] 47 ITR 273 (Mad.) (7)Inquiry under section 68 has to be just and reasonable. [1997] (Gau.) (8)Provision of section 68 are not mandatory. [1989] 33 ITJ 576. (9)Additional evidence to be admitted if it is vital and essential for purpose of arriving at final and ultimate decision, if it is in interest of justice, no prejudice is likely to be caused to revenue or for any other substantial cause. [1995] (Ahd.)." 15. On other hand, learned DR submitted that onus to establish identity of shareholders is on assessee. It is not discharged. money has not come from shareholders directly. It has come from GSPL/GSUPL. assessee-company was given all opportunity to submit addresses of shareholders. According to learned DR it is strange that all documents containing addresses of so called shareholders right from assessment years 1992-93 to 1998-99 together with other details pertaining to earlier years was sent to company secretary and lost on way. When formalities for earlier years must have been completed with RoC etc. there was, apparently, no need for company to send past record to company secretary. It is strange that assessee-company has not even kept shareholder registers, documents seeking increase in authorised share capital from year to year from RoC were n o t presented by company. In spite of claim that GSPL/GSUPL and assessee-company are sister concern, assessee-company has not been able to obtain photocopies of addresses of shareholders. 16. It is further submitted that after directors and their relations became shareholders in assessee-company, when they purchased back old shareholders share-capital, it is strange that assessee-company was not b l e to obtain from GSPL/GSUPL, addresses of original alleged shareholders. In fact, loss of document in train by accountant is only cooked up story so as to create alibi and to avoid to produce them before IT authorities. Learned DR submitted that there was no serious attempt to obtain copies of documents from RoC. In spite of 5 years passed, assessee- company was not able to obtain addresses of original shareholders from RoC or from GSPL/GSUPL. In fact, according to learned DR, assessee- company has purchased share capital from GSPL/GSUPL through clandestine transaction. If, it was genuine transaction, then GSPL/GSUPL would have invested money in its own name in assessee-company. Fictitious names of these shareholders are transferred to assessee-company so as to ensure that there is no claim back. No document is shown as proof of old shareholders transferring their funds from GSPL/GSUPL to assessee-company. It is also not proved that names in which funds were transferred to assessee-company were real original names. In fact assessee-company has only purchased share capital from GSPL/GSUPL by possibly paying its unaccounted money. Otherwise there is no valid reason for not having addresses of shareholders. It is also not put on record as to whether any shareholders during last 10 years contacted assessee-company. There must have been AGM, notice would go to shareholders. Either assessee-company has not sent and could not have sent notices of AGM as there is absolutely no record of original shareholder or assessee-company has addresses which, it does not want to produce before Assessing Officer for reasons best known to it. 17. learned DR submitted that if assessee was serious in producing evidence about shareholders, it could have requested GSUPL/GSPL to provide same to it or to Assessing Officer. Further, according to her, it is not possible to believe that neither GSPL/GSUPL nor assessee nor even RoC would have any record about addresses of shareholders or anything about their identity. At present possibly since 1999- 2000 GSPL/GSUPL are working under same roof as assessee-company is working as both have same address. Several important persons from GSPL/GSUPL are shareholders now in assessee-company. Therefore, it would not have been difficult to obtain and produce addresses/identity of shareholders. Similarly there is no serious attempt to obtain data from RoC as first letter by assessee-company to RoC was written only on 16-7-2003 whereas assessments were all completed on 31-10-2002. Assessing Officer had been asking for details about identity of shareholders since Feb. 2000 but if data was really lost it would have made effort to retrieve same, to reconstruct registers and files by obtaining same from GSPL/GSUPL and RoC but nothing of this sort was done by assessee. Since it has not produced till date anything about identity of shareholders, then only conclusion one can draw is that assessee-company does not want to produce such data for reason best known to it. 18. Regarding loss of data/files/register, learned DR submitted that such loss is apparently fictitious claim, as it is not supported by post loss conduct of assessee. It was not clarified as to why papers/data/files/registers of earlier years were being taken to co-sec. even though proceedings relating thereto must have been completed. No evidence of any pending proceedings with RoC or any another reason was shown which prompted assessee to carry old records to co-sec. Further, as per company law assessee-company is required to keep all records at Registered Office of company. No convincing reasons were advanced for moving register/files/certificates etc. to co-sec. After alleged loss assessee-company has surprisingly sat quiet without bothering to know fate of its complaint filed with police or to retrieve data about identity of shareholders, as if, he is not required to further communicate with them, either for dividend, or for AGM, or for transfer of shares etc. When there was loss of files/registers/certificates then it is surprising how entire shareholding-block or part of it was transferred to owners or their relations of GSPL/GSUPL. It is not known how assessee- company again obtained consent of alleged shareholders. 19. learned DR relied on following decisions in support of various contentions raised: (1)Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] (SC) (2)182 CTR (3)50 ITR (4)Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] (SC) (5)CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal.) (6)239 ITR 71 (Cal.) (7)C. Kant & Co. v. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 63 (Cal.) (8)CIT v. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 596 (Cal.) (9)CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] (Cal.). 20. We have considered rival submissions and case laws relied upon by parties and also perused material placed on record. We find that assessee-company is Public Ltd. Company, whose shares are not quoted on stock exchange. It had some business connection with GSPL/GSUPL and have been treated them as sister concerns while addressing to Departmental authorities. During course of hearing before us, it was denied that there was any common director/shareholder between assessee-company and GSPL/GSUPL. two companies namely GSPL/GSUPL were admittedly engaged in collecting funds from public in small amounts through various sources. They were also assessed to tax as this fact has not been controverted by Department. Since collecting funds from public in name of small savings/funds were barred by RBI and State Government, two companies GSP/GSUPL are stated to have refunded funds to various subscribers who were taken as shareholders in GSPL/GSUPL. In some cases where, as stated, funds could not be refunded to shareholders, they were agreed upon with assessee-company to transfer to it. For this purpose, it is claimed that some consent was obtained from them. Funds were transferred in small bunches to assessee-company. Cheques in respect of 30-35 shareholders together were issued to assessee-company who was having bank account in same bank as GSPL/GSUPL had. list of persons to whom funds belonged were also handed over to assessee-company along with cheques. This was done for several assessment years as indicated in submissions made by learned counsel of assessee. Thus, every year funds were transferred right from assessment years 1992-93 to 1998-99. All this increase in shareholdings seems to have not been enquired into by Department originally except in assessment year 1998-99 when Assessing Officer after finding that assessee is not producing details about identity of alleged subscribers, not only made addition under section 68 in assessment year 1998-99 in respect of shareholding brought in this assessment year, but also reopened assessment of earlier years on ground that shareholding purported to have been received from GSPL/GSUPL is not genuine. After finding that assessee-company is not providing any evidence about identity of alleged shareholders, Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 of amount, which was fresh capital introduced during this assessment year. CIT(A) confirmed addition for reasons stated in his order. 21. We find that there are no reasons to take different view than what Assessing Officer and CIT(A) have taken in matter. reasons are many. It is claimed that shareholders of GSPL/GSUPL opted to be shareholders of assessee-company. Then it is expected that they must have signed some sort of consent letters for which they must have either travelled to office of GSPL/GSUPL or GSPL/GSPUL would have made correspondence with them. There are large number of alleged subscribers. Hence consent letters or copy thereof would be available with GSPL/GSUPL. But it is not produced. Again GSPL/GSUPL would have maintained shareholders register, which would contain their addresses. No such register or copy thereof has been produced. While transferring funds from GSPL/GSUPL list of 20/25 or 30/35 persons is said to have been given to assessee-company along with cheque of total amount of funds claimed to be belonging to them. It is not proved that they were original shareholders as per register of GSPL/GSUPL or they were just not fictitious names or different names handed over to assessee-company. That is identity of persons whose funds are stated to have been transferred to assessee-company is not confirmed with original record of GSPL/GSUPL. reasons, for not doing same, are also not forthcoming. 22. Further, reason given of loss of all papers by accountant of assessee-company is also not convincing. It is stated that accountant of assessee-company was bringing back following documents from residence o f company secretary - (as per letter dated 2-12-1999 addressed to Railway Police) (1)Share transferred form with Share Certificate. (2)Share allotment letters. (3)Share application form. (4)Shareholders members register. (5)Computer Floppy containing data. It was not explained as to what emergency arose for accountant to carry entire data of all years to company secretary (co-sec.). Even it is not made clear whether accountant was carrying data for one year or for all years. If for all years then, what was urgency and which proceedings were alive for earlier years, which prompted accountant to carry old records for assessment years 1992-93 to 1997-98. Surprisingly, above list does not contain consent letters. Therefore, it is believed that, if transaction is genuine, then copies of consent letters would be available and safe. But they too are not produced. Further, if assessee had only lost computer floppy, then data should have been preserved on computer. No attempt has been made to retrieve data from computer. There is also no evidence submitted by assessee to effect that during last six years from 2-12-1999 till date, there was any attempt made by assessee-company to contact any shareholders. Share certificates would belong to shareholders. No reasons were advanced as to why share certificates were lying with assessee so as to be lost by accountant. alleged transfer of shareholding took place in various years. reasons why assessee-company is keeping share certificate with it, is not explained. After alleged filing of complaint, dated 2-12- 1999, which also does not bear any stamp or signature of Railway Police authorities, there is no attempt to pursue with them for retrieval of alleged loss of documents. Thus we are not convinced with story of alleged loss of documents by accountant. 23. Further we are not convinced that RoC would not provide data to assessee-company. Firstly they have applied to RoC only on 16-7-2003 whereas assessments were completed on 31-10-2002. If assessee-company wanted, it could have obtained data back just after alleged loss by accountant. Attempts made by Assessing Officer also did not bring any result. It has not been brought in our notice as to whether data about addresses of alleged shareholders were at all submitted to RoC. fact that RoC is unable to produce data indicates that he also does not have same, which clearly means thereby that such data may not be at all submitted to him by assessee. 24. We are also not given any reason as to why GSPL/GSUPL are unable t o provide relevant data to assessee. Both are, since 1999, and assessee-company are working under same roof as both have common addresses as GSPL/GSUPL had Data about identity of alleged subscribers who w e r e transferred to assessee-company are reasonably presumed to be possessed by GSPL/GSUPL. There is no reason why they should not provide same. Since it was not provided in last so many years and even on our asking to learned counsel for assessee that can they provide such data now and when he expressed his inability to do so, we believe that such data does not exist. We infer in fact such data never existed. Apparently there is no way to establish identity of alleged subscribers. Onus caste on assessee is not discharged. 25. There is no doubt that money has come from GSPL/GSPUL. But it is not enough to discharge onus cast on assessee under section 68. Money can come from any source. But it is necessary to establish who is owner of that money. Apparently GSPL/GSUPL are not owner of money as it is not transferred in their names. Since money so transferred is tagged with certain names its onus is on assessee to establish their identity. Address is one important component of identity, which is not forthcoming. In fact, without any address, there is no identity of subscribers and hence there cannot be any claimant to that money. It is not established as to whether share certificates were at all sent to alleged subscribers. If they were lost duplicate/fresh share certificates could have been made and dispatched, which is also not claimed to have been done. Thus for all practical purposes alleged share contribution becomes money of assessee-company as there is no claimant, in absence of their identity. We also find that there is no claim by assessee before us that they are in position now to establish identity of shareholders if case is sent back to Assessing Officer. 26. In view of this we hold that assessee has failed to discharge onus cast on him for establishing identity of shareholders. Now let us consider some case laws cited by parties in support of their contention. Regarding first hypothesis that where account books are destroyed by fire, auditor report can be relied upon. We find that nowhere auditors have examined identity of shareholders or offered their comments. Their comments are in respect of accounts. Regarding proposition that where ITO has found that investment was made by directors of assessee-company in name of fake shareholders, credits though unproved cannot be held to be income of assessee, we are of view that this proposition is no longer good law after decision of Honble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98 (FB). Which was followed in Hindustan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 289 (Cal.). Since in instant case money is credited in name of alleged subscribers onus is on assessee to prove their identity. Regarding third proposition that where return of GSPL/GSUPL have been accepted then amount received by assessee from them is prima facie genuine, is also not applicable on facts of present case. Money is not credited in name of GSPL/GSUPL in accounts of assessee- company. It is credited in names of alleged subscribers received from GSPL/GSUPL whose identity is not established. fifth proposition that assessee is not required to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt is also not relevant as it is primarily duty of assessee to establish identity of shareholders. Other propositions are also general in nature. Onus under section 68 is on assessee to prove identity of shareholders. Thus we hold that assessee is not able to discharge onus lying on him under section 68. sum credited by assessee as share capital is deemed to be income of assessee in years in which it was credited by assessee in his books. 27. In respect of appeals for assessment year 1992-93 to assessment year 1997-98, assessee has raised grounds in which he has challenged reopening of assessment under section 147. main argument of assessee is that reopening is bad hence all assessments for earlier years should be quashed as no assessment under section 147 could have been validly made. main arguments/reasoning of assessee for challenging re- assessment are as under: (1)Copy of reasons was not handed over to assessee. (2)Reasons do not reflect that any income has escaped assessment so that Assessing Officer could not have framed belief for reopening. (3)There is no allegation of non-disclosure of true and full facts material for making assessment. (4)The assessee-company had taken share capital from both GSPL/GSUPL. In particular in assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 funds had come from GSPL but Assessing Officer in reasons recorded has mentioned that funds have come from GSUPL. Thus, reasons are invalid. (5)Assessments have been reopened on basis of change of opinion. There was no fresh facts which have come in knowledge of Assessing Officer. On these propositions, learned counsel for assessee relied on following judicial pronouncement: (I)Finding on facts by higher authority relevant to assessment year cannot be mechanically adopted for other assessment years and also cannot provide reason to believe that facts found in such other assessment years were same as those found in relevant assessment year on basis of which assessments are reopened. (a)Smt. Jamila Ansari v. Income-tax Department [1997] 225 ITR 490 (All.) (II)Notice for reassessment cannot be sustained if it is based on wrong assumption of facts. (a)Khem Singh Sankhla v. Union of India [2004] 266 ITR 485 (Raj.) (b)Sagar Enterprises v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 335 (Guj.) (c)Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 200 (Bom.) (III)Meaning of phrase "assess or reassess such income and also any other income" in section 147 unless such income is assessed, other income cannot be assessed. (a)Janki Prasad Garden Enclave (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2005] (Lucknow) (IV)There has to be live link or close nexus between materials found and belief formed. (a)CIT v. Chandball Rice Mills (P.) Ltd. [1993] (Cal.) (V)Reasons recorded should show escapement of income. (a)Manish Ajmera v. Asstt. CIT [2005] (Chd.) (b)Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 2001 (Bom.) (VI)Validity of reasons should be on basis of facts mentioned therein. (a)Saradbhai M. Lakhani v. ITO [1998] (Guj.) (VII)Where assessment under section 143(3) is framed, action under section 147 can be taken after four years only if assessee has failed to file return of income or has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. (a)Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.S. Wadkar, Asstt. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 332 (Bom.) (b)McDermott International Inc. v. Addl. CIT [2003] 259 ITR 138 (Uttaranchal) (c)Manish Ajmera v. Asstt. CIT [2005] (Chd.) (VIII) Change of opinion not permissible. (a)Manish Ajmera v. Asstt. CIT [2005] (Chd.) (IX)Further, Non-recording of satisfaction that escapement of income on account of failure to make full and true disclosure of material facts cannot justify reopening where original assessment was completed under section 143(3). (a)Coca Cola Export Corpn. v. ITO [1999] (Delhi). (X)No presumption that Assessing Officer might have recorded his reasons before issuing notice under section 148. (a)Vinaychand Hirawat v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 8720 (Bom.) of 1995 order, dated 23-12-2002], (Bombay Tribunal) (Not Reported). 28. On other hand, learned DR relied on orders of CIT(A) on question of reopening of assessment. He supported order of CIT(A) by relying on decision of Honble Supreme Court in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] which held that sufficiency of reasons cannot be examined by courts which can only consider whether there was any prima facie material with Assessing Officer. learned DR pointed out that Assessing Officer had highlighted modus operandi of introducing bogus capital from sister concern. There may be typographical mistake as names are similar i.e. GSPL and GSUPL. In fact funds originally claimed to be parked in GSPL were later transferred to GSUPL and then to assessee-company. In different years assessee-company is borrowing capital from GSPL and GSUPL. Therefore, error is not fatal so as to knock out reopening of assessment. In fact Assessing Officer need not spell out detailed facts in reasons. Conclusion would have been different if funds would not have come from either of these companies or there was no increase in share capital. learned DR further submitted that assessee did not ask for reasons. First time reasons were asked was after completion of assessment. In fact, he was informed of reasons during course of assessment proceeding. She further said that it is not necessary in law that exact language of section is quoted in reasons. If it is imported from words used "unexplained cash credit in this year, will be required to be taxed. In order to bring to tax this amount....", it should be enough compliance of section. Similarly it would be enough compliance if allegation of non-disclosure can be inferred from reasons recorded by Assessing Officer. Further there can be change of opinion only when no new fact has emerged after passing original assessment but in present case assessment order for assessment year 1998-99 was confirmed by CIT (A) which became basis for reopening of assessment. This is new evidence which has come to surface. It describes modus operandi as to how assessee has obtained funds from sister concerns in names of persons described as shareholders whose identity is not proved. 29. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record and also taken into account case laws cited by assessee on question of reopening of assessment. For better understanding of legal position it is necessary to highlight relevant facts: Sr. A.Y. Asst. Notice Issued No. completed u/s 148(c) u/s Issued on 1. 1992- 143(3) 30-5- 8 yrs. 93 2001 2. 1993- 143(1) 30-5- 7 yrs. 94 2001 3. 1994- 143(1) 30-5- 6 yrs. 95 2001 4. 1995- 143(3) 30-5- 5 yrs. 96 2001 5. 1996- 143(1) 30-3- 3 yrs. 97 2001 6. 1997- 143(1) 30-3- 2 yrs. 98 2001 30. Common reason recorded by Assessing Officer for reopening of assessment was as under: (except change of amount of share application money and assessment year): "During course of assessment for assessment year 1998-99 it was seen that assessee had raised capital/share application money for earlier years also. During 1996-97 sum of Rs. 7,73,390 was raised by way of share application money/share capital. This money was raised by way of transfer of funds from Gujarat Saving Unit (P.) Ltd., but shares were issued to individual shareholders and not to Gujarat Saving Unit (P.) Ltd. On similar issues assessment for assessment year 1998-99 has been completed and same has been confirmed by CIT(A). funds to extent of above mentioned figure are therefore unexplained cash credit in this year which will be required to be taxed accordingly. In order to bring to tax this amount assessment will have to be reopened and notice under section 148 is accordingly issued." From above reasons it is apparent that fact that funds were received from GSUPL but shares were issued to individual shareholders was not available at time of framing original assessment, and fact that identity of shareholders was not established could come on record after assessment for assessment year 1998-99 was completed and finding of Assessing Officer was confirmed by CIT(A). order of CIT(A) constitutes information for purposes of section 147/148(1). assessee had not clearly brought on record any material in original return, as to infer as to from whom funds were received and to whom these fund belonged. Further assessee had not established identity of shareholders in original return. They were processed and accepted on presumption that GSPL/GSUPL were shareholders. If correct facts about original shareholders are not filed then there will be failure on part of assessee to disclose all facts truly and fully. CIT(A) considered all arguments of assessee and upheld reopening of assessment by observing as under (Assessment year 1992-93): "5. I have considered submission of assessee and also order of Assessing Officer. Assessees argument that Assessing Officer had no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is not correct. essential requirement for initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 148 is that Assessing Officer must have reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. Another requirement which is necessary for assuming jurisdiction under section 147 is that Assessing Officer shall record his reasons for issuing notice as mandated by section 148(2). This requirement necessarily postulates that before Assessing Officer is satisfied to act under section 147 read with section 148 he must do in writing as to why in his opinion or why he holds belief that income has escaped assessment. provision of section 147 requires that Assessing Officer should have reasons to believe that any income has escaped assessment. word reason in phrase income to believe would mean cause or justification. Assessing Officer has cause or justification to think or suppose that income has escaped assessment, he can be said to have reason to believe that such income h s escaped assessment. word reason to believe cannot mean Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained facts by legal evidence. They only mean that he forms belief from examination he makes and if he likes from any information that he receives. function of Assessing Officer is to administer income-tax with solicitude for public treasury and with fairness taxpayers. He is vested with great payers. His reason is not to be judged by court of what ideal man would give, unless ground of material on which his belief is based, is found to be so irrational as not to be worthy or to be called reason by honest man, his conclusion that it constitutes sufficient reason cannot be over ridden. From reason recorded by Assessing Officer it could be seen that belief of officer is of honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable ground. belief of officer is not based merely on suspicion, gossip or rumour. reason for formation of belief has rational connection with relevant information. Thus, there is direct nexus between material and reason to believe. Assessing Officer has heavily relied on order of CIT(A) for assessment year 1998-99. said order of CIT(A) has clearly held that assessee is not in position to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of credits appearing in books of assessee. Since basic requirement of credit have not been satisfied, addition under section 68 has been confirmed by CIT(A). Since assessee was in receipt of similar credits in earlier years Assessing Officer was right in coming to conclusion that amounts received by assessee were unexplained cash credits. Thus, nexus between material and reason to believe has been established in instant case. 6. assessees argument is that Assessing Officer has erroneously assumed that Gujarat Saving Unit Pvt. Ltd. has paid share application money and in fact amount was received from Gujarat Saving Unit Pvt. Ltd. to extent of Rs. 52,56,700 is also not tenable, in view of fact that sufficiency and correctness of reasons recorded cannot be questioned. This has been amply made clearly by Honble Supreme Court in case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO where it has been held that for determining whether initiation of reassessment proceedings was valid, it has only to be seen whether there was prima facie some material on basis of which department could reopen t h e case. Sufficiency or correctness of material is not thing to be considered at this stage. Only other aspects which could be challenged by assessee is jurisdiction. jurisdiction which has been assumed erroneously cannot be cured as jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent and there is n o question of waiver, acquisence (sic) etc. being attached to such case. o r d e r passed in breach of any conditions precedent would lack inherent jurisdiction and would be void order or nullity. Since order is with proper jurisdiction, assessees contention that reasons were based on wrong assumption cannot be upheld. 7. Assessees argument is that when assessment has been reopened only on basis of change of opinion is also not tenable. It is true that several courts have held that if nothing new has happened between date of original order and date of forming opinion, assessment cannot be reopened under section 148 [Jindal Photo film v. Dy. CIT - 234 ITR 170 (Delhi)]. In other words, there should be change of law or new material must have come on record or new information must have been received by Assessing Officer at time of reopening of assessment. In that event, it cannot be said that it is really fresh application of mind by Assessing Officer to same set of facts and mere change of opinion. In instant case, new information has been received by Assessing Officer in form of appellate order which has brought to forefront certain new facts which were conspicuously missing at time of original assessment. appellate order in respect of another year can be information for reopening assessment. This view has been upheld by several courts including Mumbai High Court in case of CIT v. Impaco Ltd. - 186 ITR 714. Since assessment has been reopened on fresh set of facts which have come to light on account of appeal order which is part of reasons for reopening of assessment, assessees contention that assessment has been reopened on mere change of opinion does not hold good. distinction has to be drawn between change of opinion unsupported by new information and change of opinion supported by and arising from new information (CIT v. H. Holck Larsen - (Cal.). distinction which has been cited above has obviously not been noticed by assessee. Since assessment has been reopened on basis of new information, assessees contention that assessment has been reopened on basis of mere change of opinion cannot be sustained. 8. It is true that assessment completed can be reopened beyond four years if there are omission or failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. These words postulate onus on every assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for his assessment. section casts obligation upon assessee not merely of disclosing fully all material facts, but also disclosing them truly. assessee under obligation not to mislead Assessing Officer by disclosing certain things which do not represent true facts. If Assessing Officer finds reason to believe that escapement of income has been caused by fact that assessee has not disclosed material facts truly, that would give jurisdiction. courts have also held that word truly indicates that disclosure made must confirm to actual set of things. statement cannot be said to be true if it does not express things exactly as they are. disclosure therefore should be honest, sincere and not fraudulent. necessary details though have been produced, primary facts remained to be disclosed. It would be immaterial whether Assessing Officer at time of making original assessment could or could not have found further inquiry or investigation whether transaction was genuine or not, if, on basis of subsequent information, Assessing Officer arrives at conclusion, after satisfying conditions prescribed in section 147 that assessee has not made full and true disclosure of material facts at time of original assessment and therefore, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 9. Where transaction itself on basis of subsequent information is found to be bogus transaction, mere disclosure of transaction at time of original assessment proceedings cannot be said to be disclosure of true and full facts in case and Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction to reopen concluded assessment in such case. It is correct that assessing authority could have deferred completion of original assessment proceedings for further inquiry or investigation into genuineness of loan transaction, but his failure to do so and complete original assessment proceedings would not take away his jurisdiction under section 147 on receipt of information subsequently [Phoolchand Baharanglal v. ITO - 203 ITR 256 (SC)]. Assessing Officer may start reassessment proceedings either because some fresh facts had come to light which were not previously disclosed or some information with regard to facts previously disclosed come to his possession which tends to expose untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations it is not case of mere change of opinion of drawing of different inferences from same set of facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh information. 10. Further Explanation 2 to section 147 is clear and explicit on this point. explanation give quietus to contention whether books of account and other evidence have been produced, there is duty of assessee to disclose further facts, on which due diligence could be discovered by Assessing Officer nor assessee will able to content successfully that by disclosing certain evidence, he should be deemed to have been disclosed. position remains that so far as primary facts are concerned, it is assessees duty to disclose all of them including particular entries in account books, particular portions of documents and documents and other evidences which could have been discovered by assessing authority from documents and other evidence disclosed. In other words, mere production of evidence before Assessing Officer is not enough and there may be omission or failure to make full and true disclosure if some material for assessment lies embedded in that evidence which assessee can uncover but does not. In other words, if Assessing Officer is set to discover hidden truth for himself, in which case it is lack of full and true disclosure. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. v. ITO - , Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO - 207 ITR 929 (Bom.), Vardhaman Spinning & General Mills Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT - 229 ITR 297 (Punj.). 11. very fact that Assessing Officer has discovered that assessee was not able to prove genuine identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction subsequent to original assessment show that assessee has not made full and true disclosure of material. Hence, contention of assessee in respect of reopening of assessment under section 148 is dismissed in view of above discussions." 31. Claim of assessee is that assessment could not have been reopened for assessment years prior to four years as assessment for those years were completed under section 143(3) and there is no allegation of failure of non disclosure of true and full particulars material to assessment. In support of his claim that reopening is bad, learned AR of assessee cited several case laws as referred above. first case law is Addl. CIT v. Jay Engg. Works Ltd. [1978] (Delhi). It is not at all applicable because auditors have not commented that he has examined original shareholders. His comments are confined only to financial accounts and final results therefrom. decision in ITO v. Padmanabh Investment Co. Ltd. [1990] 38 TTJ (Bom.) 555 is not good law in view of decision in Sophia Finance Ltd.s case (supra). decision in Jalan Timbers v. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 11 (Guwahati) also not helpful to assessee because there is no evidence on record of GSPL/GSUPL that they or their Assessing Officer had examined original share holders and their identity. This belief is further strengthened by fact that neither assessee- company nor GSPL/GSUPL were able to produce any iota of evidence about identity of alleged shareholders who were claimed to be on record of GSPL/GSUPL. As against this, none of them were able to even verify whether names of persons in whose names money was transferred to assessee company were same persons who were originally claimed to be shareholders in record of GSPL/GSUPL. Regarding applicability of decision in Smt. Jamila Ansari v. Income-tax Department [1997] 225 ITR 490, we find Assessing Officer has not adopted order of higher authority mechanically. facts as found by CIT(A) in assessment year 1998-99 were largely same as existing for earlier assessment years in sense that share capitals were introduced in names of shareholders whose identity was not proved even though funds had come from GSPL/GSUPL. These facts are common for all assessment years in question and they were precisely facts found by CIT(A) in assessment year 1998-99. Similarly other decisions as cited by learned counsel are also not applicable on facts of present case. There is clear case of non-disclosure of complete facts about shareholders which were found and reopening was confirmed on that basis by CIT(A) in assessment year 1998-99. reasons given by CIT(A) for confirming reopening of assessment in assessment year 1992-93 and subsequently followed in other assessment years is reasonably elaborate and convincing. This is more so when law of reopening of assessment has undergone substantial change since 1-4-1989 wherein conditions for reopening have been considerably relaxed. For assessment years within 4 years from date of issuance of notice under section 148 we are of view that order of CIT(A) forms adequate basis. We derive support from decision of Honble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Impaco Ltd. [1990] 186 ITR 714. For assessment years beyond 4 years of issuance of notice, we are of view that there is clear case of not disclosing full and true facts of share capital inasmuch as identity of t h e shareholders, there addresses were not furnished at time of original assessment. situation will positively fall in requirement of making full disclosure in original return. When there is failure of making full disclosure in return provisions of section 147/148 can be invoked. Thus, reopening is justified. We confirm reasoning and order of CIT(A) on reopening of assessment for all assessment years. He has given in fair detail reasons and basis for upholding reopening. This ground of assessee in all assessment years under appeal is, therefore, rejected. 32. last issue is about levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C. We have heard rival submissions and considered facts and material on record. levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C are mandatory in nature by virtue of decision of Honble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1. Respectfully following decision of Honble Supreme Court (supra), we reject ground of assessee. 33. In result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA Ord. No. 1524/Mum./2004(assessment year: 1992-93) 34. first ground in this appeal is about reassessment made by Assessing Officer under section 147. This issue is already decided against assessee in ITA No. 4756/M/2001 (above). Taking consistent view, we decide this issue against assessee in this appeal as well. 35. second ground in this appeal is about charging of income under section 68 being unexplained credit lying in appellants books. This issue is already decided against assessee in ITA No. 4756/M/2001 (above). Taking consistent view, we decide this issue against assessee in this appeal as well. 36. In result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA Ord. No. 1525/Mum./2004(assessment year: 1993-94) 37. first ground in this appeal is about reassessment made by Assessing Officer under section 147. This issue is already decided against assessee in ITA No. 4756/M/2001 (above). Taking consistent view, we decide this issue against assessee in this appeal as well. 38. second ground in this appeal is about charging of income under section 68 being unexplained credit lying in appellants books. This issue is already decided against assessee in ITA No. 4756/M/2001 (above). Taking consistent view, we decide this issue against assessee in this appeal as well. 39. In result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 1003/Mum./2004 (assessment year 1994-95) 40. first ground in this appeal is about reassessment made by Assessing Officer under section 147. This issue is already decided against assessee in ITA No. 4756/M/2001 (above). Taking consistent view, we decide this issue against assessee in this appeal as well. 41. second ground in this appeal is about charging of income under section 68 being unexplained credit lying in appellants books. This issue is already decided against assessee in ITA No. 4756/M/2001 (above). Taking consistent view, we decide this issue against assessee in this appeal as well. 42. In result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 1526/Mum./2004 (assessment year: 1995-96) 43. first ground in this appeal is about reassessment made by Assessing Officer under section 147. This issue is already decided against assessee in ITA No. 4756/M/2001 (above). Taking consistent view, we decide this issue against assessee in this appeal as well. 44. second ground in this appeal is about charging of income under section 68 being unexplained credit lying in appellants books. This issue is already decided against assessee in ITA No. 4756/M/2001 (above). Taking consistent view, we decide this issue against assessee in this appeal as well. 45. In result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 1527/Mum./2004 (assessment year: 1996-97) 46. first ground in this appeal is about reassessment made by Assessing Officer under section 147. This issue is already decided against assessee in ITA No. 4756/M/2001 (above). Taking consistent view, we decide this issue against assessee in this appeal as well. 47. second ground in this appeal is about charging of income under section 68 being unexplained credit lying in appellants books. This issue is already decided against assessee in ITA No. 4756/M/2001 (above). Taking consistent view, we decide this issue against assessee in this appeal as well. 48. In result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 1528/Mum./2004 (assessment year: 1997-98) 49. first ground in this appeal is about reassessment made by Assessing Officer under section 147. This issue is already decided against assessee in ITA No. 4756/M/2001 (above). Taking consistent view, we decide this issue against assessee in this appeal as well. 50. second ground in this appeal is about charging of income under section 68 being unexplained credit lying in appellants books. This issue is already decided against assessee in ITA No. 4756/M/2001 (above). Taking consistent view, we decide this issue against assessee in this appeal as well. 51. In result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed. 52. In nut shell, all appeals of assessee are dismissed. *** Pranland Housing & Fin. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer