TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1481
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 143(3)/144/147 and 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that the CIT (A) lower appellate order under challenge has rejected the assessee's appeal on account of its non appearance during the lower appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) appears to have fixed the lower appeal for hearing on 09.12.2015, 18.12.2015 and 30.08.2016 wherein the assessee did not appear. We do not find any single observation in para-3 of the CIT(A) 's order indicating the said notices to have been actually served on the tax payer/appellant. Nor is there any adjudication on merits forthcoming from the lower appellate order as per section 250(6) of the Act containing both points for determinati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect of proof of the share capital in question on thorough basis, to call upon the assessee to identify the said persons and pass a speaking order to make the impugned addition in assessee's hands. The CIT(A) had admittedly upheld the same in his order under challenge passed exparte. 4. We find in this backdrop of facts that neither of the lower authorities in assessment as well as in the appellate proceedings has complied with the CIT's section 263 directions (supra). It emerges that the Assessing Officer had sent section 131 process to the assessee's investor entities. He thereafter made the impugned addition without going through the corresponding particulars of the said investors on his own quoting the assessee's and said investors' f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee. We note that after the initial notice dated 16.08.2013, thereafter the AO had issued the notice on 26.02.2014 which has been reproduced at page 3 of the reassessment order, wherein AO required the directors of the assessee company to be present before him on 06.03.2014. However, according to the Ld. AR, the assessee received the notice only on 07.03.2014 and thereafter, the assessee requested the AO to provide another opportunity of hearing vide its letter dated 20.03.2014. Thereafter, the AO fixed the date of hearing on 12.03.2014 vide notice dated 10.03.2014. So, according to the assessee company since the directors were not in station till 23.03.2014, the Ld. AR had requested for adjournment till that time. Though the AO h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed by the Ld. CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act, which we learn to have been confirmed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and the SLP preferred against the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, similar order of the Ld. CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act has been upheld. We note that the AO while giving effect to the CIT's 263 order has noted that the assessee company has in fact furnished the documents sought by him to his notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. However, the AO took the adverse view against the assessee on the plea that the directors of the assessee company and share subscribing companies had not appeared before him on 26.03.2014 and t after taking note that n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh assessment. So, since there was lack of opportunity as aforestated it has to go back to AO. We also note that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 525/2014 dated 11.03.2015 wherein after noticing inadequate enquiry by authorities below have held as under: "41. We are inclined to agree with the CIT(Appeals), and consequently with ITAT, to the extent of their conclusion that the assessee herein had come up with some proof of identity of some of the entries in question. But, from this inference, or form the fact that the transactions were through banking channels, it does not necessarily following that satisfaction as to the creditworthiness of the parties or th....