AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 407
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as stipulated u/s. 263 of the Act and therefore without jurisdiction and resultantly bad in law, so it has to be quashed. [Please note that since there are two assessment orders, and two Ld. Pr. CIT's involved in this Appeal, for better & easy understanding the case, the AO, who framed the original assessment order is called as 'First AO' and the re-assessment /second assessment framed AO will be called as the 'Second AO' and the first revisional order passed by Pr. CIT is called as 'First Ld. Pr. CIT' and the second incumbent, who passed the impugned order is called as 'Second Ld. Pr. C.I.T']. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 30-03-2013 declaring an income of Rs. 1630/-. The case was selected for scrutiny u/s. 143(2) of the Act under CASS citing the reason "large share premium received" and assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was framed by the AO (hereinafter referred to as the First AO) in the original first assessment on 26.03.2015 making addition of total income of Rs. 45,66,01,634/- under section 68 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained cash credit being share capital received [hereinafter referred to as the first ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Audit Fees 1,500 Printing & Stationery 1,125 Communication Expenses 740 Travelling & Conveyance 2,890 Salaries & Wages 3,800 General Expenses 311 Total 10,366 5. In respect of the said second assessment/re-assessment order dated 07.12.2016, the Ld. Pr. CIT-4 (hereinafter referred to as the second Ld. Pr. CIT, vide his show cause notice (SCN) dated 16.01.2019 proposed to exercise his revisional jurisdiction (hereinafter referred to as the second SCN). The second Ld. Pr. CIT thereafter heard the assessee and passed the impugned order dated 14.03.2019 wherein he was pleased to again set aside the reassessment order/second assessment order dated 07.12.2016 and directed de-novo adjudication (hereinafter referred to as the second impugned revisional order of Ld. Pr. CIT or impugned order) by observing as under: "7. In my considered opinion, this is a case of lack of enquiry on the part of the AO. Not collecting the full facts and not taking enquiry to logical end which could enable AO to take decision based on the totality of facts makes this order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. After having considered the position of law and facts and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed" 2. That impugned order passed u/s 263 dated /4.03.2019 (IInd round) by PCIT 4 Kolkata for the period under consideration is void ab initio as there is no power under the statute to invoke section 263 qua order passed in consequence to first revision order u/s. 263 and that too by again setting aside the second order passed in consequence to first revision order u/s 263 accordingly same (order passed u/s. 263 dated 14.03.2019) deserves to be quashed. 3. That impugned order passed u/s 263 dated 14.03.2019(IInd round) by PClT 4 Kolkata for the period under consideration is void ab initio as both the foundational orders namely first assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 26.03.2015 is invalid and unlawful order (which in turn can cause no valid prejudice u/s 263) and further first revision (thereon u/s 263 to improvise the said asst. order (no such power u/s 263 there) is also invalidly passed and all subsequent proceedings including impugned order u/s 263 (dated 14.03.2019) being based on invalid orders deserves to be quashed." 8. The Ld. AR Shri Kapil Goel, first of all wants us to adjudicate Ground numbers 2 & 3 of the original grounds of appeal. Assailing the impugned action of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. 133(6) of the Act to all the shareholders and directed them to prove their identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the share transaction as required by the First Ld. Pr. CIT vide his order dated 23.08.2016 passed u/s. 263 of the Act (first revisional order of Ld. Pr. CIT). The Ld. AR also drew our attention to the fact that the second AO has clearly acknowledged that the shareholders have replied to all his queries to prove their identity, genuineness and creditworthiness as well as the source of funds which facts have been duly verified by him. The Ld. AR pointed out that the AO has observed in the second/re-assessment order that the assessee-company was incorporated on 11.02.2012 i.e. this is the first assessment year of the assessee-company after incorporation and the AO has admited that he has examined the books of account and found that the assessee company has shown Rs. 44,61,00,000/- as non-current investment as on 31.03.2012 and thereafter has made only an addition/disallowance of Rs. 10,366/- u/s. 14A of the Act. Therefore, according to Ld. AR, pursuant to the first revisional order of the First Ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act when was complied in letter a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is that the Ld. Pr. CIT should find that assessment order framed by the AO as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the Revenue. According to Ld.AR, the Second Ld. Pr. CIT without satisfying this condition precedent has invoked the revisional jurisdiction (second time), so all his actions are ab initio void. The Ld. AR also pointed out that only from the next AY i.e. AY 2013-14 i.e. with effect from 01.04.2013, the Parliament has inserted sub-clause (vii) (b) in sub-section(2) to section 56of the Act by which the share premium could have been ascertained and brought to tax. The Ld. AR also pointed out that only from AY 2013-14, the AO when considering section 68 of the Act could have even looked for the second source of the share capital & premium. In this assessment year (AY 2012-13) the onus on the assessee in respect of credit found in the books was confined to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the Source i.e. only the first source not the second source also. And since that was the requirement of law, according to Ld AR, when the assessee face the scrutiny proceedings before the AO, he is bound to satisfy the AO as per the law in force during this relevant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ital and premium, thus it was pointed out by the Ld AR that the source of source was also disclosed before the second AO and also furnished inter-alia information that they are having PAN and regularly filing tax returns. Therefore, according to Ld. AR, the AO has conducted enquiries and has recorded these facts and, therefore, order of the AO who is a quasijudicial authority vested with the power to assess the income of an assessee cannot be termed as erroneous for lack of enquiry. Further according to Ld. AR, the view of the second AO on the facts of the case is a plausible view and the Second Ld. Pr. CIT has not termed the view of second AO to be unsustainable in Law. So the Ld AR contented that the very action of invoking of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act by the Second Ld. Pr. CIT is bad in law and so has to be quashed. 9. Per contra, the Ld CIT/DR Shri Vijay Shankar vehemently opposed the plea of the Ld. AR and contended that the Second Ld. Pr. CIT had the jurisdiction to interfere by exercising his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and pointed out to us that the words used in Section 263 does not bar in any way second or third or fourth exercise of revisional jurisdiction, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s clearly mentioned that it was replying pursuant to the receipt of notices issued by the AO u/s. 133(6) dated 07-11- 2016 and furnished the answers to the queries raised by AO and filed all documents called for by the AO. He also drew our attention to the fact that in the reply to the Second Ld. Pr. CIT's show cause notice dated 16-01-2019, the assessee vide reply dated 05-02-2019 has clearly pointed out that the AO had issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to all the share applicants and after verifying their respective replies and documents, the Second AO has accepted the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the investors/share applicants and after applying his mind ( i.e after verification) has decided not to draw any adverse inference against the assessee in respect of share capital and premium transaction with assessee. And only after completion of enquiry, the AO has passed a speaking order and drew our attention to the second/re-assessment order. However, according to Ld. AR, even though these facts were pointed out to the second Ld. Pr. CIT, he did not controvert these facts. And the Ld. AR drew our attention to the second assessment order of AO and took us throug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olders along with documents to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital & premium invested by them along with the source of fund, which facts were verified by the Second AO. And after satisfying himself, the second AO accepted the share capital & premiums, and in that process did not draw any adverse view or made any addition u/s. 68 of the Act, which view is a possible view as per law and cannot at any rate be classified as unsustainable in law. So according to Ld. AR, the order of second AO in respect of his view/satisfaction regarding share capital & premium is the result of specific direction of the First Ld. Pr. CIT, so doctrine of merger has taken place and on this subject matter, the second Pr. CIT cannot enter into and again revise, which power he does not enjoy. Notwithstanding this contention, according to Ld.AR the mandatory condition precedent to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 has not been fulfilled, without which the Second Ld. Pr. CIT could not have exercised his revisional power. Thus, according to Ld.AR, the second Ld. Pr. CIT has not satisfied the conditions precedent which is sine qua non for usurping the revi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erfere in the re-assessment order framed by the AO which was pursuant to the first revisional order passed by the First Ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, when the subject matter was the same and the re-assessment order of the second AO has merged with the First Revisional order of First Ld. Pr. CIT. In order to adjudicate both this legal issue, first of all we need to examine the basic jurisdictional issue i.e. whether the condition precedent stipulated by section 263 of the Act was satisfied, so that the Second Ld. Pr. CIT could have exercised his revisional power which he is empowered to do by the Act. For that, we note that the statutory condition precedent as prescribed by section 263 of the Act is that the Ld. Pr. CIT can invoke the revisional jurisdiction, if the assessment order is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the Revenue. Keeping this in mind, we have to examine as to whether in the first place the order of the Second Assessing Officer found fault by the Second Principal CIT is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. For that, let us take the guidance of judicial precedent laid down by the Hon'bIe Apex Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed u/s. 143(3) of the Act made an addition of Rs. 45,66,01,634/- by an order dated 26-03-2015, which has been interdicted by the first revisional order passed by the First Ld. Pr. CIT vide order dated 28- 03-2016, wherein the Ld. Pr. CIT was pleased to set aside the original first assessment order dated 26-03-2015 and directed the AO to de novo assess the income of the assessee and gave specific direction to enquire about share capital & premium. The operative portion of the first revisional order dated 28.03.2016 is again reproduced below for the sake of continuity:- "4(v) Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed on 26.03.2015 is set aside denovo with a direction to carry out proper examination of books of accounts and Bank accounts of assessee as well as investors. The AO is also directed to examine the source of share application, identity of investors and its genuineness. The assessment proceedings may be initiated at the earliest to be completed without waiting time barring date. The AO must provide sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee in order to meet natural justice, equity and fairness."(emphasis given b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment order. According to the Ld. Counsel, the Second Ld. Pr. CIT in the second round while exercising his revisional jurisdiction could not have first of all assumed revisional jurisdiction and secondly could not have modified the earlier revisional order of the First Ld. Pr. CIT's passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 28-03-2016, when the fact remains that the AO has followed the direction of the First Ld. Pr. CIT-4 on the subject matter i.e. share application money (share capital & premium ) while passing the second re-assessment order dated 07-12-2016. In order to appreciate this contention of Ld AR, we perused the first revisional order dated 23-08-2016 passed u/s. 263 of the Act by the first incumbent Ld. Pr. CIT while setting aside the original first assessment order dated 26-03-2015 wherein he has recorded certain finding of fact after perusal of the records (first assessment folder/records of assessee). The First Pr CIT has acknowledged that in the first round of assessment proceedings, the assessee company had duly furnished before the AO the following documents:- (i) audited financial statements; (ii) copy of Form filed with the ROC; (iii) copy of PAN Card of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 263 of the Act by the First Ld. Pr. CIT by his first revisional order dated 23.08.2016 for de-novo assessment which means the second AO is free to assess the income of assessee afresh, but with specific directions to AO while framing the reassessment order vide para 4(v) of his order. The specific directions of First Ld Pr CIT to AO are as under: (i) To carry out proper examination of the books of accounts and bank account of the assessee; ii) To carry out proper examination of the books of accounts and bank account of the investors; iii) AO to examine the source of the share applicants; iv) The AO to examine the identity of the investor and its genuineness; v) The AO to complete the assessment at the earliest without waiting for the time barring date. 25. Now let us examine whether the second AO carried out his role of an investigator. In this respect, we note that pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the First Ld. Pr. CIT (first revisional order) dated 28-03-2016, the Second AO has recorded in his reassessment/ second assessment order that he had issued notice u/s. 142(1) on 19-10-2016, wherein he (AO) acknowledges that Shri Navin director of the assessee company a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udice to the Revenue, then the condition precedent to invoke revisional jurisdiction us/. 263 of the Act will be satisfied. So the question is whether this fault i.e. lack of enquiry on share capital and premium alleged by the second Ld. Pr.CIT is correct, which is a mixed question of fact and law. 28. So the question is whether there is any merit on the finding of the Second Ld. Pr. CIT that the second assessment order/re-assessment order dated 7-12-2016 can be termed as erroneous for lack of enquiry. On a conjoint reading of the second SCN and operative portion of the impugned order, it can be safely deduced that according to Second Ld. Pr. CIT, the AO in the second round has not enquired about the share capital & premium collected by the assessee. For that we need to carefully examine as to whether the second AO has carried out his dual role as an investigator as well as an adjudicator while deciding the issue of share capital and premium collected by the assessee for AY 2012-13. Before we examine about the investigative role of the AO, we need to examine the law as it stood in AY 2012-13 and is applicable in this case. Section 68 of the Act reads as under:- Section 68: Where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicable is reproduced as under:- Section 56(2)(viib): "Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares: Provided that this clause shall not apply where the consideration for issue of shares is received- (i) By a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company or a venture capital fund, or (ii) By a company from a class or classes of persons as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf. Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, (a) The fair market value of the shares shall be the value- (i) As may be determined in accordance with such method as may be prescribed, or (ii) As may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer based on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ponderance of probabilities and cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Delhi High Court in CIT vs N .R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Further, according to Ld. AR in the case of unlisted companies, it is common knowledge that premium fixed is a matter of mutual agreement and ITAT Mumbai in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has held that it is a prerogative of the Board of Directors of the company to decide the premium amount and it is the wisdom of the shareholders whether they want to subscribe to such a heavy premium. And the aforesaid view of the ITAT has been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court order dated 20th March 2017. Further the Hon'ble High Court observed as under- "(i) We find that the proviso to Section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1stApril, 2013. Thus it would be effective only from the Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the subject Assessment Year. Infact, before the Tribunal, it was not even the case of the Revenue that Section 68 of the Act as in force during the subject years has to be read/understood as though the proviso added subsequently effective only fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chain House International (P) Ltd., order dated 07.08.2018, decision reported in 98 taxmann.com47 has held at para 52 as under- "Issuing the share at a premium was a commercial decision. It is the prerogative of the Board of Directors of a company to decide the premium amount and it is the wisdom of shareholder whether they want to subscribe the shares at such a premium or not. This was a mutual decision between both the companies. In day to day market, unless and until, the rates if fixed by any Govt. Authority or unless there is any restriction on the amount of share premium under any law, the price of the shares is decided on the mutual understanding of the parties concerned ..". (C) The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT-l(l) vs. M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. the ITAT has held as under: "We have carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities. In our considered view, the issue of shares at premium is always a commercial decision which does not require any justification. Further the premium is a capital receipt which has to be dealt with in accordance with Sec. 78 of the Companies Act, 1956. Further, the company i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any Government of India is holding 18% of shares. The contributors to the IDFC PE Fund-Il who is a subscriber to the assessee's share capital, are LIC, Union of India, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Indian Overseas Bank and Canara Bank which are all public sector undertakings. Therefore, to raise eyebrows to a transaction where there is so much of involvement of the Government directly or indirectly does not make any sense. 10.1 No doubt a non-est company or a zero balance company asking for a share premium of Rs. 490/- per share defies all commercial prudence but at the same time we cannot ignore the fact that it is a prerogative of the Board of Directors of a company to decide the premium amount and it is the wisdom of the share holders whether they want to subscribe to such a heavy premium. The Revenue authorities cannot question the charging of such of huge premium without any bar from any legislated law of the land. Details of subscribers were before the Revenue authorities. The AO has also confirmed the transaction from the subscribers by issuing notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act. The Board of Directors contains persons who are associated with IDFC group of companies, therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14. (E) ITA-2270/KOL/2016 -Trend Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee specifically argued before the ld. CIT(A) that the allotment of shares at a premium cannot be considered as sham or income of the assessee. It was pleaded at a preliminary level that the receipt of share capital and share premium is on capital account and that the same cannot be subject to tax as income. Specific submissions were also made in the context of introduction of section 56(2)(viib) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.20l3 which reads as under: "(viib) Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares: Provided that this clause shall not apply where the consideration for issue of shares is received- (iii) By a venture capital undertaking from a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct was not an issue which was urged by the appellant Revenue before the Tribunal. The only issue which was urged before the Tribunal as recorded in paraJ J of the impugned order is the addition of share capital and share application money in the hands of the assessee as income under section 28(iv) of the Act. We find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did considerthe issue of applicability of section 68 of the Act and concluded that it does not apply. The Revenue seems to have accepted the same and did not urge this issue before the Tribunal. Mr. Bhoot, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue also fairly states that the issue of applicability of section 68 of the Act was not urged by the Revenue before the Tribunal. (b) It is a settled position in law as held by this court in CIT v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. [20021 J 22 Taxman 6431256 ITR 395 (Bom.) that in an appeal under section 260A of the Act, the High Court can only decide a question if it had been raised before the Tribunal even if not determined by the Tribunal. Therefore, no occasion to consider the question as prayed for arises. (c) In any case, we may point out that the amendment to section 68 of the Act by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and Hotel (P.)Ltd. (supra). In both the above cases the court has held that the amount received on issue of share capital including premium are on capital account and cannot be considered to be income. (c) It is further pertinent to note that the definition of income as provided under section 2(24) of the Act at the relevant time did not define as income any consideration received for issue of share in excess of its fair market value. This came into the statute only with effect from April 1, 2013 and thus, would have. no application to the share premium received by the respondent-assessee in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2012-13. Similarly, the amendment to section 68 of the Act by addition of proviso was made subsequent to previous year relevant to the subject assessment year 2012-13 and cannot be invoked. It may be pointed out that this court in CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 (Bom.) has while refusing to entertain a question with regard to section 68 of the Act has held that the proviso to section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his case the legislative mandate is not in terms of the words 'shall' be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year". The Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting similar phraseology used in section 69 has held that in creating the legal fiction the phraseology employs the word "may" and not "shall". Thus the un-satisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 36. In a case wherein the AO made the addition u/s 68 of the Act because the lenders of loan to assessee did not turn up before him [AO], the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 has held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stands fully discharged if the identity of the creditor is established and actual receipt of money from such creditor is proved. In case, the Assessing Officer is dissatisfied about the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts of the creditors, the proper course would be to assess such credit in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... who has been fully identified, the assessee/borrower cannot be called upon to explain, much less prove the affairs of such third party, which he is not even supposed to know or about which he cannot be held to be accredited with any knowledge. In this view, the Hon'ble Court has laid down that section 68 of Income-tax Act, should be read along with section 106 of Evidence Act. The relevant observations at page 260 to 262, 264 and 265 of the order are reproduced herein below:- "While interpreting the meaning and scope of section 68, one has to bear in mind that normally, interpretation of a statute shall be general, in nature, subject only to such exceptions as may be logically permitted by the statute itself or by some other law connected therewith or relevant thereto. Keeping in view these fundamentals of interpretation of statutes, when we read carefully the provisions of section 68, we notice nothing in section 68 to show that the scope of the inquiry under section 68 by the Revenue Department shall remain confined to the transactions, which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor nor does the wording of section 68 indicate that section 68 does not authoriz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of his creditor, the burden of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions as well as the creditworthiness of the creditor must remain confined to the transactions, which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor. What follows, as a corollary, is that it is not the burden of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions between his creditor and sub-creditors nor is it the burden of the assessee to prove that the subcreditor had the creditworthiness to advance the cash credit to the creditor from whom the cash credit has been. eventually, received by the assessee. It, therefore, further logically follows that the creditor's creditworthiness has to be Judged vis-a-vis the transactions, which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor, and it is not the business of the assessee to find out the source of money of his creditor or of the genuineness of the transactions, which took between the creditor and sub-creditor and/or creditworthiness of the sub- creditors, for, these aspects may not be w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent case, we find that so far as the appellant is concerned, he has established the identity of the creditors, namely, Nemichand Nahata and Sons (HUF) and Pawan Kumar Agarwalla. The appellant had also shown, in accordance with the burden, which rested on him under section 106 of the Evidence Act, that the said amounts had been received by him by way of cheques from the creditors aforementioned. In fact the fact that the assessee had received the said amounts by way of cheques was not in dispute. Once the assessee had established that he had received the said amounts from the creditors aforementioned by way of cheques, the assessee must be taken to have proved that the creditor had the creditworthiness to advance the loans. Thereafter the burden had shifted to the Assessing Officer to prove the contrary. On mere failure on the part of the creditors to show that their sub-creditors had creditworthiness to advance the said loan amounts to the assessee, such failure, as a corollary, could not have been and ought not to have been, under the law, treated as the income from the undisclosed sources of the assessee himself, when there was neither direct nor circumstantial evidence on record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verification, he can call for further explanation from the assessee and in the process, the onus may again shift from the Assessing Officer to assessee. 16. In the case before us, the appellant by producing the loan-confirmation-certificates signed by the creditors, disclosing their permanent account numbers and address and further indicating that the loan was taken by account payee cheques, no doubt, prima facie, discharged the initial burden and those materials disclosed by the assessee prompted the Assessing Officer to enquire through the Inspector to verify the statements." 40. In a case where the issue was whether the assessee availed cash credit as against future sale of product, the AO issued summons to the creditors who did not turn up before him, so AO disbelieved the existence of creditors and saddled the addition, which was overturned by Ld. CIT(A). However, the Tribunal reversed the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and upheld the AO's decision, which action of Tribunal was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in the case of Crystal Networks (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 353 ITR 171 wherein the Tribunal's decision was overturned and decision of Ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and documents, viz., confirmatory statements, invoices, challans and vouchers showing supply of bidis as against the advance. Therefore, the attendance of the witnesses pursuant to the summons issued, in our view, is not important. The important is to prove as to whether the said cash credit was received as against the future sale of the product of the assessee or not. When it was found by the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) on facts having examined the documents that the advance given by the creditors have been established the Tribunal should not have ignored this -fact finding. Indeed the Tribunal did not really touch the aforesaid fact finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel. The Supreme Court has already stated as to what should be the duty of the learned Tribunal to decide in this situation. In the said judgment noted by us at page 464, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal performs a judicial function under the Indian Income-tax Act; it is invested with authority to determine finally all questions of fact. The Tribunal must, in deciding an appeal, consider with due care....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been accepted by the Assessing officer of the creditor but instead of adopting such course, the Assessing officer himself could not enter into the return of the creditor and brand the same as unworthy of credence. So long it is not established that the return submitted by the creditor has been rejected by its Assessing Officer, the Assessing officer of the assessee is bound to accept the same as genuine when the identity of the creditor and the genuineness" of transaction through account payee cheque has been established. We find that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the Tribunal below followed the well-accepted principle which are required to be followed in considering the effect of Section 68 of the Act and we thus find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the authorities." 42. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing SLP in the case of Lovely Exports as has been reported as judgment delivered by the CTR at 216 CTR 295: "Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961? We find no merit in this special le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of Cl. T. vs. M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. [supra], we are at one with the Tribunal below that the point involved in this appeal is covered by the said Supreme Court decision in favour of the assessee and thus, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of any substance and is dismissed. 44. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/s. Nishan Indo Commerce Ltd dated 2 December, 2013 in INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.52 OF 2001 wherein the Court held as follows: "The Assessing Officer was of the view that the increase in share capital by Rs. 52,03,500/- was nothing but the introduction of the assessee's own undisclosed funds/income into the books of accounts of the assessee company. The Assessing Officer accordingly treated the investment as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) being the First Appellate Authority and contended that the Assessing Officer had no material to show that the share ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dingly the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and affirmed the decision of the learned Commissioner. Mr. Dutta appearing on behalf of the petitioners cited judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ruby Traders and Exporters Limited reported in 236 (2003) ITR 3000 where a Division Bench of this Court held that when Section 68 is resorted to, it is incumbent on the assessee company to prove and establish the identity of the subscribers, their credit worthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. The aforesaid judgment was rendered in the context of the factual background of the aforesaid case where, despite several opportunities being given to the assessee, nothing was disclosed about the identity of the shareholders. In the instant case, the assessee disclosed the identity and address and particulars of share allocation of the shareholders. It was also found on the facts that all the shareholders were in existence. Only nine shareholders subscribing to about 900 shares out of 6, 12,000 shares were not found available at their addresses, and that too, in course of assessment proceedings in the year 1994, i.e., almost 3 y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee was shifted and it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to enquire whether those particulars were correct or not and if the Assessing Officer was of the view that the particulars supplied were insufficient to detect the real share applicants, to ask for further particulars. The Assessing Officer has not adopted either of the aforesaid courses but has simply blamed the assessee for not producing those share applicants. In our view, in the case before us so long the Assessing Officer was unable to arrive at a finding that the particulars given by the assessee were false, there was no scope of adding those money under section 68 of the Income- tax Act and the Tribunal below rightly held that the onus was validly discharged. We, thus, find that both the authorities below, on consideration of the materials on record, rightly applied the correct law which are required to be applied in the facts of the present case and, thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact based on materials on record. The appeal is, thus, devoid of any substance and is dismissed summarily as it does not involve any substantial question of law. 46. In the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee or to bring on record anything against the assessee and thus according to him, the AO with a pre-determined mind has simply jumped to the conclusion that the share capital collected by assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Therefore, according to the First Ld. Pr. CIT, the first original assessment order framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 26-03-2015 was against the principle of natural justice and, therefore, he found it fit to order denovo assessment and gave specific direction in respect of share capital & premium collected by assessee. 48. Thereafter, the ld. Pr. CIT was pleased to direct "...............assessment order passed on 26.03.2015 is set aside de novo with the direction to the AO to carry out proper examination of books of account and bank statement of the assessee as well as the investor. The AO is also directed to examine the source of share application, entity of investor and its genuineness". (emphasis given by us). He also directed that the assessment proceedings to be initiated at the earliest and to be completed without waiting for time bar limit. With the aforesaid specific direction, the First Ld. Pr. CIT has set aside the first ori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their respective (i) PAN details, (ii) CIN detail, (iii) Audited Annual Report for FY 2011-12 (AY 2012-13), (iv) ITR acknowledgment for AY 2012-13 which the AO acknowledges that he verified the same and thus we note that the identity of the investors were duly furnished by the assessee's director; and the AO verified the veracity of the same from all the share applicants by issuing notice u/s 133(6) of the Act and moreover it is common knowledge that in this computer/digital era, the AO on a click of the mouse, could have easily verified the identity of the share applicant which is available in the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the ITR Acknowledgments filed by them, will enable the AO to cross verify and collect details from the AO of the respective share applicants and independently from the Revenue's departmental data base. We note that all the share subscribing parties filed all the documents called for by the AO [PB-2] and were also examined by the AO along with audited accounts from which these details show their identity. Sl. No. Name of company CIN PAN ITR filed for AY 2012-13 1. M/s. K. R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. U51109WB1994PTC061965 AACCK0101B yes 2.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of AO and not the order-sheet maintained by him which has not been negatively commented upon by the Second Ld Pr CIT and it is not the fault for which the Ld Pr CIT exercised his power u/s 263 of the Act. Thus, we note that second AO issued sec. 133(6) notice and collected documents running more than 352 pages. Moreover, the First Ld. Pr. CIT while setting aside the first AO's order has returned a finding that assessee in the first round itself has filed the relevant documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital and that assessee had discharged its onus by filing the same. So we find that during the second round, the AO issued notices to share-holders u/s. 133(6) and after perusing their replies and supporting documents and thereafter having verified their veracity, the second AO was satisfied with the explanation of assessee in respect to the nature and source of share capital which view of second AO cannot be faulted. And we also note that all the share-holders are regular income tax assessee's. Therefore in the light of the aforesaid documents discussed their identity cannot be disbelieved and the AO's satisfaction in respect of identi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of assessee (though not required as per law in force for AY 2012-13), bank statement, audited balance sheet etc except M/s Maharaja and M/s Sristi Sales. Thus the assessee had discharged the onus on it about the creditworthiness of the share- holders. So we note that the source of the investments has been clearly brought to the notice of the second AO during the assessment/reassessment proceedings. Further, the bank statements of all the shareholders as well as that of assessee were filed before the AO, which revealed that the share capital and premium have been subscribed by them through banking channel (NEFT or cheque) which goes on to show that the assessee has discharged the onus in respect of genuineness of the transaction. Based on the documents and materials called for by the AO who accepted the same after verification is an act of enquiry. And we note that revenue has not brought on record any material to challenge the veracity of the documents referred to above. Moreover, the second Ld. Pr. CIT in his impugned order has not brought any material to rebut the presumption of second AO to justify his intervention u/s. 263 of the Act and which would have upset the decision o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estment in assessee's company and Share Application Form, Bank statement, ITR acknowledgement, and explanation of source of fund as well as financial statement available in the PB-page 39 to 77. This share applicant regularly filed Income Tax Return (ITR) and it has filed its Bank statement. This company has furnished the details of source of Funds and has duly filed financial statements and thus we note that the assessee had duly discharged its onus to prove the identity of the share applicant by adducing PAN as well as income-tax returns. The financial statement shows that the share applicants had enough funds to invest in the assessee-company and the transaction has happened through banking channel. Further, it is noted that the share applicant had furnished the source of investment made in the assessee-company after getting the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. (iii) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2 pages78 to 111, the details of share applicant M/s. Ambala Trafin Pvt. Ltd. It is a Private Limited Company which has a PAN AACCA1184G and its CIN number is U67120WB1995PTCO74397 and the Net worth of this company as on 31.3.2012 Rs. 62,47,11,003- (PB-page101) and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany and the transaction has happened through banking channel. Further, it is noted that the share applicants had furnished the source of investment made in the assessee-company after getting the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. (v) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 138 to 159 the details of share applicant M/s. Shivarshi Construction Pvt. Ltd. It is a Private Limited Company which has a PAN AAQCS7848M and its CIN number is U45400WB2011PTC170957 and the net worth of this company as on 31.3.2012 Rs. 53,89,95,046/- (PB-page 153) and investment made in the assessee company is to the tune of Rs. 4,66,00,000/- and this share applicant has made the transaction through banking channel on 29.03.2012 Rs. 4,66,00,000/-through Cheque. There is board resolution for investment in assessee's company and Share Application Form Bank statement, ITR acknowledgement, explanation of source of fund as well as financial statement available in the PB-page 139 to 159 in the PB. This share applicant regularly filed Income Tax Return (ITR) and it has filed its Bank statement. This company has furnished the details of source of Funds and has duly filed financial statements. This shar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a Private Limited Company which has a PAN AABCF9036D and its CIN number is U52190WB2012PTC 173352and the net worth of this company as on 31.3.2012 Rs. 15,38,94,946/- (PBpage 200 ) and investment made in the assessee company is to the tune of Rs. 4,49,00,000/- and this share applicant has made the transaction through banking channel on 30.03.2012 Rs. 4,49,00,000/- through Cheque. . There is board resolution for investment in assessee's company and Share Application Form, Bank statement, ITR acknowledgement, explanation of source of fund as well as financial statement available in the PB-page 186 to 206 n the PB. This share applicant regularly filed Income Tax Return (ITR) and it has filed its Bank statements and thus we note that the assessee had duly discharged its onus to prove the identity of the share applicants by adducing PAN as well as income-tax returns. The financial statement shows that the share applicant had enough funds to invest in the assessee-company and the transaction has happened through banking channel. Thus the assessee has discharged the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Further, it is noted that the share appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able in the PB-page 228 to 261 in the PB. This share applicant regularlyfiled Income Tax Return (ITR) and it has filed its Bank statement. This company has furnished the details of source of Funds and has duly filed financial statements. This share applicant regularly filed Income Tax Return (ITR) and it has filed its Bank statement. This company has furnished the details of source of Funds and has duly filed financial statements. The financial statement shows that the share applicant had enough funds to invest in the assessee-company and the transaction has happened through banking channel. Thus the assessee has discharged the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Further, it is noted that the share applicants had furnished the source of investment made in the assessee-company after getting the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. (x) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 262 to 283 the details of share applicant M/s. Labhdhan Impext Pvt. Ltd. It is a Private Limited Company which has a PAN AACCL2111J and its CIN number is U51909WB2011PTC171524 and the net worth of this company as on 31.3.2012 Rs. 56,18,94,080/- (P.B-2, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nished the source of investment made in the assessee-company after getting the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. (xii) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 304 to 326 the details of share applicant M/s. Maharaja Merchants Pvt. Ltd. It is a Private Limited Company which has a PAN AAECM224E and its CIN number is U51109WB2005PTC102343 and the net worth of this company as on 31.3.2012 Rs. 1,54,58,399/-(page 313 of P.B-2)and investment made in the assessee company is to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs and this share applicant has made the transaction through banking channel on 28.02.2012 a sum of Rs. 50lakhs through Cheque. There is Share Application Form, Bank statement, ITR acknowledgement, financial statement available in the PB-page 304 to 326 in the PB. This share applicant regularly filed Income Tax Return (ITR) and it has filed its Bank statement. The financial statement shows that the share applicant had enough funds to invest in the assessee-company and the transaction has happened through banking channel. Thus the assessee has discharged the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Further, it is noted that the share appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of the second AO in giving effect to the specific directions given by him while passing the first revisional order on 23.08.2016. Thus, we note that when the second AO while framing the reassessment order pursuant to the specific direction of the First Ld. Pr. CIT's order dated 23.08.2016 (first revisional order) has complied with the specific directions of the First Ld. Pr. CIT and based on the inquiry conducted and after perusal of the documents running more than 352 pages which reveals the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital and premium collected by the assessee from the share subscribers, the satisfaction of AO as envisaged in sec. 68 of the Act is a plausible view and the fact that the share subscribers responded to sec. 133(6) notice and produced all documents along with the audited financial statements and other documents referred supra, the assessee had discharged the onus upon it about the identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital and premium collected by the assessee from the respective share subscribers. Since the aforesaid exercise was carried out by the second AO in the reassessment proceedings and the documents ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recorded a finding of fact that the decision of AO's enquiry was faulted or wrong and in that process tried to show that it has resulted in a view which is "unsustainable in law" which would have justified his action of passing the impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act, which unfortunately is not the case. Since the AO's view on the facts collected and discussed is definitely a possible view, so in the factual background discussed in detail, we are of the considered opinion that Ld. second Pr. CIT ought not to have interfered with the AO's reassessment order which in any case can be classified as 'unsustainable in law' since it is in line with plethora of judicial decisions of the subject. 56. To sum up, we find from the above said facts that the Second AO has conducted enquiry as directed by the First Ld. Pr. CIT on the specific subject matter i.e. share capital and premium collected by the assessee-company. Therefore, the finding of Second Pr. CIT that the Second AO has not conducted enquiry is incorrect and is flowing from suspicion only. And as discussed, the allegation/fault pointed out by the Second Ld. Pr. CIT that the Second AO failed to collect total facts also cannot be acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....canvassed before us, we note from the facts of this case that the second Ld. Pr. CIT - 4 by passing the second revisional order dated 14.03.2019 has substituted the First Pr. CIT's order passed u/s. 263 of the Act dated 23.08.2016 with his own order which he cannot do since the second assessment order/re-assessment of the Second AO dated 07.12.2016 was pursuant to the first revisional order of the First Ld. Pr. CIT and on the very same subject matter on which specific directions/instructions were given by the First Ld. Pr.CIT, which direction since having been complied by the AO, brings into operation the doctrine of merger the subject matter i.e. share capital & premium collected by assessee company. Resultantly the second Ld. Pr.CIT, again cannot rake-up the same subject matter without the second Ld. Pr.CIT in the second revisional order spells out where the error happened to second AO as an investigator or adjudicator, which exercise the Second Ld. Pr.CIT has not done, so the second Ld. Pr. CIT cannot be permitted to again ask the AO to start the investigation in the way he thinks it proper on the very same subject on which merger has taken place by virtue of the order of First ....