TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... disclosing 'Nil' income. The company had issued shares at a premium during the year. The Assessing Officer selected the case for scrutiny and issued notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The assessee did not appear. Summons u/s. 131 of the Act were issued to the directors of the share subscriber companies for personal attendance. None appeared. The Assessing Officer drew adverse inference and made an addition u/s. 68 of the Act of the share capital and share premium received by the assessee during the year. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. 3. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that, the notice of hearing sent by the Ld. CIT(A) was on a wrong address....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 7. In this case there is violation of principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer has not given proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee has claimed that notices were not served. The Ld. D/R could not controvert the same. This Bench of the ITAT in similar cases has been restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. In the case of Shram Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in I.T.A. No. 1104/Kol/2016, Assessment Year: 2009-10 order dt. March 21, 2018, at para 6 and 7 held as follows: "6. In the case of M/s. Sukanya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA 291/KoI/2016 dated 15.12.2017) cited by the learned counsel for the assessee, a simi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere 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 has not received the said summon and, therefore, could not make the personal appearance. The AO has drawn adverse conclusion basically because of non-appearance of the directors of the assessee company and that of the shareholder companies. We note that initially the AO started the enquiry on 16.08.2013 which was complied by the assessee by submitting documents which has been acknowledged by the AO. Thereafter, the enquiry was started only at the fag end of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....company and share subscribing companies had not appeared before him on 26.03.2014 and after taking note that none appeared on 26.03.2014 concluded on the same day 26.03.2014 that entire amount of share application money received along with premium amounting to Rs. 8,06,00,000/- which has remained unexplained and added to the income of the assessee. We also note that the Ld. CIT after looking into the pernicious practice of converting black money 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 bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... through banking channels, it does not necessarily following that satisfaction as to the creditworthiness of the parties or the genuineness of the transactions in question would also have been established. 42. The AO here may have failed to discharge his obligation to conduct a proper inquiry to take the matter to logical conclusion. But CIT(Appeals), having noticed want of proper inquiry, could not have closed the chapter simply by allowing the appeal and deleting the additions made. It was also the obligation of the first appellate authority, as indeed of ITAT, to have ensured that effective inquiry was carried out, particularly in the fact of the allegations of the Revenue that the account statements reveal uniform pattern of cash depo....