TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment year 2006-07. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration in this appeal;- (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal, erred in law in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) by deleting the addition of Rs. 11,39,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by disregarding that the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the share applicants in question ? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal, erred in law in holding that the manner in which the Learned CIT (Appeals) remanded the issue to the Assessing Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(c) will be initiated separately. Aggrieved by such order assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kolkata, C88 contending that the Assessing Officer committed an error in treating the entire share capital as undisclosed cash credit in the absence of proper opportunity to provide details. Further contentions were also raised before the appellate authority. Further during the hearing of the appeal before the CIT(A) the assessee contended that they were carrying on business at the given address and all correspondence and direct transactions were conducted from the said address and the copy of the said document were filed before CIT(A) along with written submissions. Further the assessee contended that as per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessing Officer has come to the conclusion that the transactions with all the share holders were duly cross verified and found in order and the replies received from all the shareholders were also forwarded by the Assessing Officer along with remand report. Thus taking on record the said remand report and noting that there has been thorough cross verification done by the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal deleting the additions. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue, sought to sustain the order passed by the Assessing Officer and raised the contention which were canvassed before us in this appeal. The Tribunal after taking note of the fact approved the view taken by the CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade by the learned Counsel for the revenue appears to be convincing. However on a close scrutiny we find that the order passed by the CIT(A) does not suffer from any error. The CIT(A) is entitled to exercise the power of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, two options were available before the CIT(A), in the event he found that facts were required to be brought on record. The first of the options available was to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The second option would be to call for the remand report from Assessing Officer by keeping the appeal pending. The CIT(A) exercised the second option which undoubtedly could go to save a lot of time in the matter of completion of the assessment. Upon direction being ....