TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Shri T.Pramodkumar Chopda, Adv., represented on behalf of the assessee. 3. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee is a Private Ltd. Co., and doing business of Trading in iron and steel. The assessee had, during the relevant Assessment Year, received share application money to an extent of Rs. 80.00 lakhs from M/s.NextGen Health Solution Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, 52, Weston Street, Kolkata, to an extent of Rs. 50.00 lakhs for one lakh shares at face value of Rs. 10.00 lakhs and share premium of Rs. 40.00 lakhs from M/s.LemonGrass Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, 52, Weston Street, Kolkata, to an extent of Rs. 20.00 lakhs for 40,000 shares having face value of Rs. 4.00 lakhs at a share premium of Rs. 16.00 lakhs and M/s.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It was a submission that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports, the addition was liable to be deleted. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of M/s.Lalitha Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd., reported in 399 ITR 425 (Mad) as also the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Delhi)(HC) reported in 361 ITR 220. 4. The Ld.AR also filed a petition for admission of additional documents, wherein, it has been submitted that at the time of hearing, the assessee had filed only the Board Resolutions, share application and fund flow statement and bank statements. It was a submission tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same branch of the same bank being M/s.Karnataka Bank Ltd. It was a further submission that a perusal of the bank accounts clearly shows that before making the investment or the share application money, funds had been brought into the bank account and immediately thereafter cheques have been issued. It was a submission that the addition as made by the AO and as confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be confirmed. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. 7. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR was asked why the companies did not respond to the notices, to which, the Ld.AR submitted that he had no idea, as to why the companies did not respond to the DDIT (Investigation), Unit 2(1), Kolkata. A perusal of the bank account in the case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmittedly, these evidences need to be examined in detail. This being so, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. The facts in the present case showed that certain evidences had been produced before the AO. The AO had sent these details to Kolkata for examination as the share applicants are based in Kolkata. Now, examining such persons in Kolkata at the back of the assessee would be a clear violation of the principles of the natural justice. In these circumstances, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. The AO should keep in mind that the share applicants hold 59.07% of the shares in the assessee company toge....