JUDGMENT

Kalpesh Satyendra Jhaveri, J. - By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

2. Counsel for the appellant has framed the following questions of law:-

(i) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified under law while passing of the impugned order dated 18.12.2017 without applying its mind and by merely reproducing the contents of order passed in its own earlier judgment in ITAT No. 702/JP/2014 titled ACT Circle I, Jaiur vs. Bright Metals Indian Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur dated 24.02.2017 and simply recording that the assessee company being a private limited company the burden of proof on higher pedestal ignoring the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases referred in the impugned order itself particularly at page 9 & 11 of the impugned order?

(ii) Whether the Id. ITAT was justified under law while confirming the findings of the authorities below it by ignoring the fact that the assessee- company has furnished the detail particulars of the bank accounts, passport, PAN card, addresses and earnings by the shareholder-cum-Director who had invested money in the assessee-company, particularly when the investment was made through banking channel?

(iii) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified under law while confirming the findings of Id. CIT(A) and the Id. AO wherein the Id. AO for treating the investment of share money by Sh. Jagjit Singh who is British NRI as unproven?

(iv) Whether the Id. ITAT was justified under law while sustaining the additions made by Id. CIT(A) in the hands of the Assessee-Company u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by merely recording that the burden of proof if on higher pedestal on the assessee-company as compare to public limited companies in terms of creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction without analysing the fact of the higher burden?"

3. Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal and all the authorities have committed serious error in dismissing the appeal inasmuch as the provisions of Section 68 were inserted with effect from 1st April, 2013 whereas the assessment order relates to the year 2011-12.

4. Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the order of Tribunal wherein it has been observed as under:-

"11. Now, coming to various legal authorities on the subject which have been quoted by the ld AR in support of his contentions, the same have recently been analysed by us (speaking through one of us) in exhaustive detail in case of ACIT Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Bright Metals Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur (ITA No.702/JP/14) dated 24.02.2017 as under:-

"3. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, we refer to various legal authorities on the subject which has been brought to our notice by both the parties.

3.1 In case of Navodaya Castle (P) Ltd (supra) which is a case of a private limited company, it is noted that the SLP has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the Court do not see any merit in the SLP against the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. In this case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has referred to catena of earlier decisions such as case of CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169, CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2014] 222 Taxman 157, CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98(Delhi) (FB), CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 268, CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and CIT v. Nipun Builders & Developers [2013] 350 ITR 407 and has held as under:

"12. The main submission of the learned counsel for the assessee is that once the assessee had been able to show that the shareholder companies were duly incorporated by the Registrar of Companies, their identity stood established, genuineness of the transactions stood established as payments were made through accounts payee cheques/bank account; and mere deposit of cash