TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....presented on behalf of assessee except filing adjournment application, has passed the ex-parte order. As per the Ld. AR, the assessee for reasons beyond his control could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) so promptly filed adjournment application which has been acknowledged by the Ld. CIT(A), however the Ld. CIT (A) found fault with the assessee not appearing before him on 21.07.2016 and came to the conclusion that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal is not correct, when the facts as recorded by Ld. CIT(A) that assessee had filed an adjournment application before him on 28.06.2016, so the Ld. CIT(A) taking note that on all the six dates of hearing had in fact filed adjournment application before him shows that assessee was foll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of aforesaid Order passed u/s 263 of I.T. Act by Ld. CIT, Kol-II, Kolkata, a formal notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee on 28.08.2013, asking it to produce and submit certain details and documents to substantiate its Return of Income. In response to the said notice, Sri K V Jaiswal, A/R of the assessee appeared and produced written submissions. 4. It was noticed the assessee during the year has raised a paid-up share capital of Rs. 4.12 crores by issuing equity shares including premium. To verify the genuineness of the said transactions and to verify the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders of the assessee company, notice u/s 131 of I.T. Act was issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeared and produced written submissions which fact has been acknowledged by the AO. The AO thereafter taking note that the assessee during the year has raised a paid-up share capital of Rs. 4.12 crores by issuing equity shares (including premium) in order to verify the genuineness of the said transactions and to verify the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders of the assessee company, issued notice u/s 131 of the Act to directors and they were asked to appear personally before him and directed to produce/furnish details / documents in support of the justification for the investment made in the assessee company. Since none appeared in response to the notice u/s 131 of the Act, according to AO, it is evident that assessee has n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme Court in Tin Box Company Vs. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC) has held as under: "It is unnecessary to go into great detail in these matters for there is a statement in the order of the Tribunal, the fact-finding authority, that reads thus : "We will straightaway agree with the assessee's submission that the Income-tax Officer had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence for it is the assessment order that counts. That order must be made after the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of setting out his case. We, therefore, do not agree with the Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act has been upheld by the Tribunal as well as by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court as well as the SLP has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, similar order of the Ld. CIT has to be given effect to as directed by the Ld. CIT. We take note that the Ld. CIT with his experience and wisdom has given certain guidelines in the backdrop of black money menace should have been properly enquired into as directed by him. The AO ought to have followed the investigating guidelines and method as directed by him to unearth the facts to determine whether the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the share subscribers. We note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court (three judges bench) in the case of Tin Box, (supra), has held that since there ....