TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conditional precedent 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. CIT]. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 11.09.2012 declaring loss (- of Rs. 2615/-). The case was selected for scrutiny u/s. 143(2) of the Act under CASS 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 12.03.2015 making addition of total income of Rs. 1,89,81,000/- under section 68 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained cash credit being share premium received [ hereinafter referred to as the first as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e could be taken only after examining and verifying the facts/ submission of the AR on this score. 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 circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that the assessment order passed by the A.O. is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in accordance with the Explanation 2(c) below section 263 (1) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment is set aside to the table of A.O on the issue as outlined in para- 2 above. The A.O is directed to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee company to produce documents & evidences which it may choose to rely upon for substantiating its own claim, The AO is further directed to adjudicate the said issue de novo and pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with the relevant provisions of law." 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned action of the second Ld. Pr.CIT, the assessee is before us challenging the jurisdiction of second....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r attention to the fact that the second AO has clearly acknowledged that the investors identity, genuineness and creditworthiness as well as the source of funds have been verified by him. 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 compiled in letter and spirit by the second AO, subsequent/impugned action of the next incumbent in the chair of Pr.CIT-4 (second) to undertake an exercise of revisional jurisdictional under section 263 (revision) which culminated in second revisional order dated 12.03.2019 tantamount to the new incumbent in the chair of Pr.CIT-4 (second) reviewing the order of his predecessor Pr. CIT4 (First) dated 21.09.2016, which is not permitted by Law. According to Ld. AR, the second Ld. Pr. CIT - 4 by passing the second revisional order dated 12.03.2019 has substituted the First Pr. CIT's order passed u/s. 263 of the Act dated 21.09.2016 with his own order which he cannot do since the second assessment order/re-assessment of the Second AO dated 03.11.2016 was pursuant to the first revisional order of the First Ld. Pr. CIT and on the subject matter on which specific directio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 assessment year (AY 2012-13) and it cannot be expected from him/assessee to be a clairvoyant to anticipate the requirement of law for future years and satisfy those also before the AO in the present AY, when there is no such requirement of law that the assessee must be aware of the source of source of the share-applicant at the time when he collects the share capital itself and according to him, if it is insisted then it is unfair and unreasonable. According to Ld. AR, when the law was only that assessee need to be aware of first source only then the AO could not have gone and verified beyond the source of the share applicants from whom the assessee had received the share capital. So when the requirement of law is only that assessee must ascertain that the share-applicant, who proposed to invest in assessee's company's share capital ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 263 does not bar in any way second or third or fourth exercise of revisional jurisdiction, if he finds the assessment order/re-assessment order of AO is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the Revenue. According to him, the AO has not conducted proper enquiry. And also he pointed out that the first Ld. Pr. CIT while setting aside the original/first assessment order has ordered the Second AO to frame re-assessment/second assessment de- novo meaning that AO was given full liberty to enquire on all issues including share capital and premium collected by assessee. So according to Ld. CIT /DR the contention of Ld. AR that the second Ld. Pr. CIT cannot have directed fresh assessment on share capital & premium is devoid of merit and no merger took place as contended by the Ld. AR, so the doctrine of merger did not take place in this case because the Ld. Pr.CIT (First) has directed de novo assessment. So according to Ld. CIT DR, the Second Ld. Pr. CIT's impugned action is correct since the AO's second assessment order was erroneous. And, therefore, he does not want us to interfere. 13. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions as put forth on behalf of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ues, 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'ble Apex Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC), wherein their Lordship have held that twin conditions needs to be satisfied before exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( in short, 'CIT'). The twin conditions are that the order of the Assessing Officer must be erroneous and so far as prejudicial to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 12.03.2015 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 by us) 17. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the First Ld. Pr. CIT, the Second AO has framed the re-assessment/second assessment order by accepting the return filed by the assessee & without making any addition in respect of share premium vide order dated 03.11.2016. 18. Thereafter, the Second Ld. Pr. CIT issued show cause not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eciate this contention of Ld AR, we perused the first revisional order dated 21.09.2016 passed u/s. 263 of the Act by the first incumbent Ld. Pr. CIT while setting aside the original first assessment order dated 12.03.2015 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 assessee company; (iv) details and copy of share applicants; (v) bank statement reflecting the transaction; (vi)records relating to investors in order to establish identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the share subscribers were filed by them pursuant to AO's notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. (viii) pursuant to the notices, the share applicants have duly filed their replies along with documents called for by the AO. (Refer page-8 PB order sheet) 22. The First Ld. Pr.CIT found that AO in the first assessment proceedings though has been provided with the aforesai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 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 21.09 2016, the Second AO has recorded in his reassessment second assessment order that pursuant to his notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, Shri Ashish Trivedi, director of the assessee company appeared and produced the following documents:- (i) Copy of ITR (Income Tax Returns) (ii) Audited accounts iii) Computation of income iv) Details of business activities v) Details of investment/share capital vi) Form 2 and Form 5 vii) List of shareholders viii) Details of bank accounts. 26. The AO also acknowledges in his re-assessment/second assessment order that he has examined the aforesaid de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 68: Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year: Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless- (a) The person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) Such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply if the person, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. Whichever is higher: (b) Venture capital company, venture capital fund, and venture capital undertaking shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clause (a), clause (b) and clause (c) of Explanation to clause (23FB) of section 10]". 33. So we note that in this assessment year before us i.e. AY 2012-13, the law in force was that if any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee in a financial year and, if the AO asks for the explanation of assessee in respect of the nature and source thereof, then the assessee is duty bound to explain the nature and source of the credit entry in the books and if the assessee fails to explain or if the AO is not satisfied, he may charge to income tax the sum so credited. So, the assessee is bound to explain before the AO the nature and source of share capital, i.e. the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital. In this AY, the assessee is bound to know about the share applicants who wish to invest their identity, whether they have the financial capacity (creditworthiness) and they are genuine investors in their company (assessee). In this AY, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubsequently effective only from 1stApril, 2013 was its normal meaning. The Parliament did not introduce to Section 68 of the Act with retrospective effect nor does the proviso so introduced that it was introduced "for removal of doubts" or that it is "declaratory". Therefore it is not open to give it retrospective effect, by proceeding on the basis that the addition of the proviso to Section 68 of the Act is immaterial and does not change the interpretation of section 68 of the Act both before and after the adding of the proviso. In any view of the matter the three essential tests while confirming the pre proviso Section 68 of the Act laid down by the Courts namely the genuineness of the transaction, identity and the capacity of the investor have all been examined by the impugned order of the Tribunal and on facts it has found satisfied. (ii) Further it was a submission on behalf of the Revenue that such large amount of share premium gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders i.e. they are bogus. The Apex Court in CIT vis. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 317 ITR 218 in the context to the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1956. Further, the company is not required to prove the genuineness, purpose or justification for charging premium of shares, share premium by its very nature in a capital receipt and is not income for its ordinary sense. It is not in dispute that the assessee had filed all the requisite details/documents which are required to explain in the books of accounts by the provisions of Sec. 68 of the Act. The assessee has successfully established the identity of the companies who havepurchased shares at a premium. The assessee has also filed bank details to explain the source of the shareholders and the genuineness of the transaction was also established by filing copies of share application forms and Form No. 2 filed with the Registrar of Companies. Considering all these undisputed facts, it can be safely concluded that the initial burden of proof as rested upon the assessee has been successfully discharged by the assessee. Even if it is held that excess premium has been charged, it does not become income as it is a capital receipt. The receipt is not in the revenue field. What is to be probed by the AO is whether the identity of the assessee is proved or not. In the case of share ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee 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. 37. 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 the hands of the creditor (after making due enquiries from such creditor). In arriving at this conclusion, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 vie v 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 authorize the Revenue Department to make inquiry into the source(s) of the credit and/or sub-creditor. The lang....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 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 within the special knowledge of the assessee. " "If a creditor has, by any undisclosed source, a particul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndNahata 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 that the said loan amounts actually belonged to, or were owned by, the assessee. Viewed from this angle, we have no hesitation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer to assessee. 16. In the case before us, the appellant by producing the loan-confirmationcertificates 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. CIT(A) upheld and the Hon'ble High Court held that when the basic evidences are on record the mere failure of the credito....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce. 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 thisfact 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 all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 leave petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee- compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 capital was the income of the assessee company and as such the addition made by the Assessing Officer under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner. 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 years after the allotment. By an order dated 2nd May, 2001, this Court admitted the appeal on three questio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 light of the afore-cited judicial precedents, let us examine the case in hand and find out whether pursuan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Id. Pr. CIT was pleased to direct "........assessment order passed on 12.03.2015 is set aside de novo with the direction to the AO to carry out proper examination of books of account and bank to 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". 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 original assessment order dated 12-03-2015. 49. So we note that the second AO was specifically directed by the First Ld. Pr. CIT to carry out the followings actions in addition to de-novo assessment which means the second AO was free to assess the income of assessee afresh, however, he has to do the following specific actions as directed in respect of share- applicants who applied for shares in assessee-comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctor; and the AO verified the veracity of the same which facts were already in the assessment folder as found by Ld. First PCIT which were obtained by AO (first) 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-1, PAGES 15-129] and were also examined by the AO along with audited accounts from which these details show their identity;- SL NO NAME OF ALLOTTEE CIN PAN NO Whether ITR filed for AY 2012-13 1 Nayan Tie Up Pvt Ltd U50404MH2009PTC204355 AACCN9155G Yes 2 Tribhuvan Deal Trade Pvt Ltd U52190WB2010PTC155416 AACCT3855B Yes 3 ManomayCommosale Pvt Ltd U74999WB2011PTC163984 AAHCM2756M Yes 4 Inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 20,00,000 13,92,74,548 124 115 117 53. So, from a perusal of the above chart, we note that the assessee and the shareholders have brought to the notice of Second AO that they (share subscribers) have enough net worth to invest in the assessee company and the share subscribing companies pursuant to the AO's notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act have furnished their respective audited accounts from which the aforesaid facts are clearly discernible and moreover the share subscribers have also filed before the second AO the source from which they subscribed to shares of assessee (though not required as per law in force for AY 2012-13), bank statement, audited balance sheet etc. 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The financial statement of this share applicant shows that it had enough funds to invest in the assessee-company and the transaction has happened through normal banking channels. 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. 2. Tribhuvan Deal Trade Pvt Ltd On perusal of the paper book, it reveals that documents are placed at page 45-60 of share applicant, M/s Tribhuvan Deal Trade Pvt Ltd, which is a Private Limited Company and which has Permanent Account No.AACCT3855B and CINU52190WB2010PTC155416.We note that this share applicant company has filed its Pan Card, ITR acknowledgment, source of funds, relevant Bank Statement and audited accounts in response to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. A copy of its Income Tax Return Acknowledgment for AY 2012-13 is placed at page 50 of the paper book. On perusal of the Audited Accounts of this share applicant (Page 51-60), it is noted that its Net-worth (Share Capital plus Reserves and Surplus) as on 31.03.2012 wasRs. 26,04,94,448/-, page 55 of the paper book and the investment made in the assessee-company inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AY 2012-13 is placed at page 81 of the paper book. On perusal of the Audited Accounts of this share applicant(Page 82-95), it is noted that its Net-worth (Share Capital plus Reserves and Surplus) as on 31.03.2012 wasRs. 21,18,73,887/-, page 87 of the paper book and the investment made in the assessee-company including share premium was Rs. 40,00,000/-. Entire Share Application money of Rs. 40,00,000/- was received by the assessee through normal banking channels on 20-09-2011. The financial statement of this share applicant shows that it had enough funds to invest in the assessee-company and the transaction has happened through normal 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. 5. Balaji Finvest Pvt Ltd On perusal of the paper book, it reveals that documents are placed at page 97-113 of share applicant, M/sBalaji Finvest Pvt Ltd which is a Private Limited Company and which has its Permanent Account No.AAACB9794P and CINU65993WB1995PTC157000.We note that this share applicant company has filed its Pan Card, source of funds, ITR acknowledgm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ealed during the second round, we note that second AO has discharged his duty as an Investigator and had made enquiries as per the direction of the First Ld. Pr.CIT dated 21-09-2016 u/s. 263 of the Act (First 263 order) and further we note that the Second Ld. Pr. CIT while issuing the Show Cause Notice while exercising his revisional jurisdiction for second time has not made even a single allegation about the noncompliance/failure on the part of Second AO in respect of the specific direction given by the First Ld. Pr. CIT dated 21-09-2016 while setting aside the original assessment order passed by the AO dated 12-03-2015. In other words, in the impugned order the second Ld. Pr. CIT has not found fault with the action of the second AO in giving effect to the specific directions given by him while passing the first revisional order on 21-09-2016. 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 21-09-2016 (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 which reveals the ide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....result to a different finding of fact which will turn upside down the claim of the assessee and thus able to show that the actions/omission of AO in conducting the investigation was erroneous, which unfortunately is not the case before us. And equally bad is the bald allegation/fault that second AO has not collected total facts cannot be accepted being vague and based on conjectures and surmises and so meritless. Since the assessee company has discharged its onus as discussed supra, and still if the Second Pr. CIT had to find the order of Second AO erroneous for lack of enquiry or for not collecting the entire facts, then the Second Pr. CIT ought to have called for the additional facts which he thinks that the Second AO has not collected from the assessee or the shareholders and then explained in his impugned order as to what effect those additional documents would have made on the second assessment order/reassessment order or in other words the impact on the decision making process of framing the second assessment order due to the failure of second AO's omission to collect the additional documents. However, we note that the Second Pr. CIT has not carried out any such exercise or e....