TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 548
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee. The AO upon perusal of the audited accounts of the assessee observed that the assessee has raised share application of Rs. 2,70,50,000/- during the instant financial year and accordingly a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued along with questionnaire dated 13.11.2014 calling upon the assessee to furnish details/information which were duly furnished by the Counsel of the assessee by appearing in person filing the details of directors of company, shareholders and investments as on 31.03.2012, details of sundry debtors, details of loans and advances as on 31.03.2012, master data of the company as per MCA, bank statement of the assessee, form no. 2 and Form 18 filed with ROC and letter from BSE dated 16.04.2014 confirming listing of equity shares of the company. Thereafter the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 23.01.2015 to the Principal Officer of the assessee company to submit the same information in respect of share application money. Further the AO also issued summons to the directors of the assessee company u/s 131 dated 23.01.2015 to appear personally and also to produce the directors of the share subscribers on 10.02.2015. The directors of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO may be directed to delete the addition. 7. The Ld. D.R ,on the other hand, relied on the orders of authorities below by submitting that the assessee has failed to prove identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions as the directors or the assessee company as well as the directors of the subscribers company did not complied with the summons. The ld DR submitted that just filed certain papers/documents to prove the investment/money received by the assessee which is not sufficient to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transaction. The ld DR has requested the bench to allow the revenue to file submissions for which the bench allowed 15 days.The ld DR filed written submissions dated 03.11.2023 to defend the order passed by the lower authorities which were taken into account and considered. Under this circumstances, the Ld. D.R submitted ,while relying heavily on the order of Ld. CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ddresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notices under Section 131 at the instance of the respondent, did not pursue the matter further. The Revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were creditworthy. There was no effort made to pursue the so-called alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the respondent could not do anything further. In the premises, if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent had discharged the burden that lay on it, then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. I f the conclusion was based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arose. The High Court was right in refusing to state a case." 8.1 The case of the assessee is also squarely covered by the decisions of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra ) wherein it has held that where all the evidences were filed by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....age 465 that if the Tribunal does not discharge the duty in the manner as above then it shall be assumed the judgment of the Tribunal suffers from manifest infirmity. Taking inspiration from the Supreme Court observation we are constrained to hold in this matter that the Tribunal has not adjudicated upon the case of the assessee in the light of the evidence as found by the Ld. CIT(A). We also found no single word has been spared to up set the fact finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that there are materials to show the cash credit was received from various persons and supply as against cash credit also made. Hence, the judgment and order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. We restore the judgment and order of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal is allowed." 8.2. The case of is also covered by the decision of the coordinate bench in ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the operative part whereof is extracted below: "8. We have heard the submissions of the learned D.R, who relied on the order of AO. The learned counsel for the assessee relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A) and further drew our attention to the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions but AO has not commented on these evidences filed by the assessee. Besides the investors have also furnished complete details/evidences before the AO which proved the identity , creditworthiness of investors and genuineness of the transactions. Under these facts and circumstances and considering underlying facts in the light of ratio laid down in the decisions as discussed above , we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) by allowing the appeal of the assessee. The ground no. 2 is allowed. 10. Second issue raised in ground no. 3 is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 1,26,958/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 11. Facts in brief are that during the year the assessee has not earned any exempt income and also not made any disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act, however the AO by applying CBDT circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 calculated the disallowance at Rs. 1,26,958/- and added the same to the income of the assessee. 12. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee when the assessee did not appear bef....