TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 2020
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... perused. 2. We notice at the outset that the assessee's instant appeal suffers from 24 days' delay in filing. The assessee has placed on record its condonation petition stating non-availability of its directors during the prescribed limitation period. Learned. Departmental Representative is fair enough in not disputing correctness of the said averments. We therefore hold the impugned delay of 24 days to be neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of circumstances beyond assessee's control. Case is now taken up on merits. 3. Assessee's sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities'; action treating its share application / premium amounting to Rs.1,92,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit liable to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld. first appellate authority deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act and granted relief to the assessee. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 4.1. Before us, the ld. D/R, submits that the Assessing Officer was not given adequate opportunity to examine all the details filed on record before the ld. CIT(A) and that new evidence were brought on record. He prayed that the issue may be remanded back to the file of the Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee. We note that after the initial notice dated 16.08.2013, thereafter the AO had issued the notice on 26.02.2014 which has been reproduced at page 3 of the reassessment order, wherein AO required the directors of the assessee company to be present before him on 06.03.2014. However, according to the Ld. AR, the assessee received the notice only on 07.03.2014 and thereafter, the assessee requested the AO to provide another opportunity of hearing vide its letter dated 20.03.2014. Thereafter, the AO fixed the date of hearing on 12.03.2014 vide notice dated 10.03.2014. So, according to the assessee company since the directors were not in station till 23.03.2014, the Ld. AR had requested for adjournment till that time. Though the AO has stated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act, which we learn to have been confirmed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and the SLP preferred against the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, similar order of the Ld. CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act has been upheld. We note that the AO while giving effect to the CIT's 263 order has noted that the assessee company has in fact furnished the documents sought by him to his notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. However, the AO took the adverse view against the assessee on the plea that the directors of the assessee company and share subscribing companies had not appeared before him on 26.03.2014 and t after taking note that none appeared on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o, since there was lack of opportunity as aforestated it has to go back to AO. We also note that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 525/2014 dated 11.03.2015 wherein after noticing inadequate enquiry by authorities below have held as under: "41. We are inclined to agree with the CIT(Appeals), and consequently with ITAT, to the extent of their conclusion that the assessee herein had come up with some proof of identity of some of the entries in question. But, from this inference, or form the fact that the transactions were through banking channels, it does not necessarily following that satisfaction as to the creditworthiness of the parties or the genuineness of the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of AO for de novo assessment and to decide the matter in accordance to law after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. We, therefore, consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to set aside the orders of the authorities below on the issue in dispute and restore the matter to the file of the A.O. to decide the same afresh after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard and after taking into consideration the entire evidence already available on record as well as other documentary evidence which the assessee may choose to file in support of its case on the issue." 6. T....