TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee has filed the return of income electronically on 22.09.2009 disclosing total income of Rs. 8195/-. Upon scrutiny notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was made. The original assessment order u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act was completed on 30.03.2011 assessing total income of Rs. 32,700/-. 3. The ld. AO disallowed the filing fees of Rs. 24,500/-. Further that the ld. AO accepted that the assessee issued fresh equity share capital of Rs. 46,00,000/- on premium of Rs. 4,14,00,000/- upon accepting the papers filed by the assessee as evidence of the genuineness of the transactions and thereby gave a certificate of genuineness of share capital and share premium in a routine manner. 4. In appeal the observation and finding of the ld. AO was not accepted by the ld. CIT(A). He further took note of a racket under which a large number of identical companies were floated in identical manner apparently showing to have introduced the share capital on a huge premium by rotating the unaccounted money. Considering the fact the issue of the share with a face value of Rs. 10/- by the assessee company at a premium of Rs. 9 per share require thorough examination by the AO. The AO failed to carry out. The ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was considered by the Ld. Co-ordinate Bench was the guidelines/mandate framed/directed in the matter u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. CIT(A) on 30.03.2011 were followed or not. In this particular case the Ld. Representatives argued before us that merely because the directors did not appear before the ld. AO addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee without taking recourse the formalities/steps to be taken into for conducting deep investigation to unearth the facts to determine the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share holders as mandated by the order dated 30.03.2011. On the other hand, the ld. DR relies upon the orders passed by the authorities below. 7. We have heard the ld. Representative appearing for the parties and have perused the relevant materials available on record and have gone through the orders passed by the AO and the CIT(A) as well. We find that since the director did not appear before the ld. AO the entire amount has been added to the income of the assessee. The guidelines as framed in an identical matter by the ld. CIT(A) on 30.03.2011 has not been followed. The ld. Advocate has argued before us that the AO has not made independent enqu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I. T. Acknowledgement, bank statement for the relevant period evidencing the receipt of share application money from the share applicants. Thereafter, the AO makes certain inferences based on the list of shareholders and taking note of the bank statement furnished by 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 has stated that he has issued summons on 24.03.2014 to the assessee company to produce the directors of the company before him on 26.03.2014, the assessee company contended that it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey into white money has given the guidelines to AO as to how the investigation should be conducted to find out the source of source. Since similar order of the Ld. CIT passed u/s. 263 of 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 in three judges bench in the case of Tin Box, (supra), has held that since there was lack of opportunity to the assessee at the assessment stage itself, the assessment needs to be done afresh and thereby reversed the Hon'ble High Court, Tribunal and CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter back to AO for fresh assessment. So, since there was la....