Uranium Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2229/DEL/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 222920114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAACU0403E
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2229/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant Uranium Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 11-04-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 18-09-2013
Next Hearing Date 18-09-2013
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 05-05-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: H NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J.S.REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2229/DEL/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07) URANIUM CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT. LTD. FLAT NO-10 C-1/2 MODEL TOWN DELHI-110009. PAN-AAACU0403E (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-18(2) NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH.VED JAIN CA RESPONDENT BY: SH. VIVEK KUMAR SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 28.02.2012 OF CIT(A)-XXI NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2006-07 ASSESS MENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORD ER PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CIT(A) IS BAD IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 66 05 000/- AS UNEXPLAINED UNVERIFIABLE AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME UN DER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. (II) THAT THE ABOVE SAID ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND IGNORING THE EXPLA NATION AND EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT. 3(I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE AMO UNT OF RS.1 66 05 000/- BEING THE SALE PROCEEDS HAVING BEEN INCLUDED IN THE INCOME THE SAME CANNOT BE AGAIN INCLUDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. (II) THAT THE ABOVE SAID ADDITION WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE INCOME COMPUTED ON THE BASIS THEREOF IS UNSUSTA INABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. 2 I.T.A .NO.-2229/DEL/2011 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEA NED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN CONFIRMING THE CHARGEABILITY O F THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND OR ALTER A NY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE HEARING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL TOOK PLACE ON TWO DIFFERENCE DATES. ON THE FIRST DATE OF HEARING THE LD. AR OPENED HIS ARGUMEN TS BY REQUESTING THAT ISSUE HAS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF F ACTS. THE SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS TAKEN IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID REQUEST SHALL BE ADDR ESSED SEPARATELY HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF DICTATION CLARIFICATION ON FACTS WAS NECESS ITATES FOR WHICH PURPOSES THE PARTIES WERE HEARD AGAIN AND LD. AR FILED HIS SYN OPSIS ADDRESSING THE ISSUES. 3. BRIEFLY THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHOSE BUSINESS IS DESCRIBED AS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSULTANC Y BY THE AO AS PER PARA 1 OF HIS ORDER FILED A RETURN ON 26.11.2006 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.2 802/-. THE SAID RETURN WAS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND AF TER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) ETC. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT RS.1 66 02 198/-. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND LD. AR INVITING ATTENTIO N TO THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE AO AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER INVITE D FURTHER ATTENTION TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD SO AS TO CONTEND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO RESORT TO SEEKING INFORMATION UNDER THE RTI ACT 2005 FROM TH E DEPARTMENT WHICH INITIALLY WAS DENIED BY THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE R AND ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE RESORTED TO FILING AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE CPIO THAT THE RELEVANT INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. ADDRESSI NG THE FACTS ON RECORD IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT ON THE RECEIPT OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION FROM THE CIC I.E. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION THE ASSESSEE WAS FIN ALLY ABLE TO ADDRESS THE 3 I.T.A .NO.-2229/DEL/2011 FACTUAL INACCURACY NAMELY THAT ON THE SPECIFIC DATE WHEN THE AO RECORDS THAT NONE ATTENDED INFACT THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED AND IT WAS NOT A CASE OF NON- ATTENDANCE AS HAS BEEN WRONGLY RECORDED IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. THE SAID ISSUE IT WAS SUBMITTED HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A) WHO TAKES COGNIZANCE OF THIS FACT AT PAGES 18 & 19 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER BUT SOMEHOW CHOOSES TO IGNORE THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS FACTUAL INACCURACY AND INST EAD PLACES RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF CIC DATED 03.07.2009 SO AS TO CONCLUDE THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY IN THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES IT WAS HIS HUMBLE PRAYER THAT FOR VERIFICATION OF FACTS THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE RESTORED. ON MERITS IT WAS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE REV ENUE THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE SAID TO BE OPERATED BY SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHES HWARI WHICH IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVE BEEN RECORDED AS PREM MAH ESHWARI AND IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN RECORDED AS PAWAN MAHESHWARI E TC. ARE INACCURATE WHICH POSITION INFACT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO HIMSELF WHO HAS IN HER ZEST & ZEAL IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE ADDITIONS MADE HAS REPEATEDLY BLUNDERED VARIOUSLY NOT ONLY IN REGARD TO THIS NAME BUT ALSO AT TIMES RECORDING THE NAME OF THE DIRECTOR AS ARVIND KUMAR MODI INSTEAD OF ARVIND KUMAR MAHESHWARI. IT W AS HIS SUBMISSION THAT EVEN IF THESE FACTUAL INACCURACIES ARE ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT INFERENCES ARE DRAWN ADVERSE TO THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT THA T IF AT THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONCERNED PARTY POWER OF ATTORNEY IS GIVEN TO A SP ECIFIC PERSON TO OPERATE ITS BANK ACCOUNTS HOW CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GENUINE ALL THESE ASPECTS IT WAS ARGUED HAVE NOT BEEN LOOKED INTO BY THE REVENUE . THE VIEW IT WAS SUBMITTED ON FACTS HAS BEEN TAKEN WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REP LY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RECEIPT OF THE REPLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE DAK BEFORE THE AO IT WAS SUBMITTED HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM PA RA 7 WHICH IS REPLY TO PARA 11 OF THE INFORMATION SOUGHT RECORDED IN PAGE 19 OF TH E IMPUGNED ORDER AND THIS REPLY IT WAS SUBMITTED NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED ON MERIT BY THE AO WHICH HAS NOT BEEN 4 I.T.A .NO.-2229/DEL/2011 DONE. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HIS REQUEST THAT THE ISSU E MAY BE RESTORED FOR VERIFICATION ON FACTS. 6. IN REPLY THE LD. SR. DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE NAME OF THE PERSON ENTITLED TO OPERATE THE ACCOUNT MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PREM MAHESHWARI HAS WRONGLY BEEN MENTIONED AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN PR AVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWARI. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN ACCEPTED THAT THE NAME IN THE R EMAND PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR AS ARVIND KUMAR MODI HAS WRONGLY BEEN ME NTIONED AND THE NAME INFACT SHOULD BE SHRI ARVIND KUMAR MAHESHWARI HOW EVER IT WAS HIS STAND THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO QUA THE NON-ATTENDANCE ON THE SPECIFIC DATE. REFERRING TO THE REPLY GIVEN IN THE CIC IT WAS STATED THAT IT IS SELF- EXPLANATORY THAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN DUE TO A CLERICAL ERROR HOWEVER IT WAS HIS STAND THAT THESE PARTIES HAVE BEEN TREATED AS ENTRY OPERA TORS AND THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GENUINE. THE REQUEST THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED THOUGH WAS NOT OPPOSED. 7. IN REPLY THE LD. AR INVITED ATTENTION TO THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE. THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES DETA ILS OF DIRECTORS DETAILS OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS BANK RE-CONCILIATION STATEMENT DETA ILS OF SUNDRY DEBTORS AND EXPENSES INCURRED DETAILS OF PURCHASE OF SHARES D ETAILS OF MONTH-WISE PURCHASES ETC. THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE PARTIES ARE AVAILA BLE ON RECORD. ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 03 .02.2009 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RTI IN THE CASE OF SH. ARVIND KUMAR DATED 03.07 .2009 AND 29.07.2009 PLACED AT PAGES 56-57 & 58-59 WERE RELIED UPON; COPY OF TH E REPLY OF THE CONCERNS WHOSE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN DOUBTED NAMELY M/S MORAL PAP ERS (P) LTD.; M/S ROOP YAMS PVT. LTD.; M/S JOY COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. ETC H AVE ALL BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. 8. SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF HEARING THE CASE WAS F IXED FOR CLARIFICATION WHEREIN AGAIN EMPHASIS WAS LAID ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE RTI COPY PLACED AT PAGES 52-54 OF THE PAPER B OOK. THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM 5 I.T.A .NO.-2229/DEL/2011 THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION CONTAINING ITS D ECISION COPY PLACED AT PAGES 56-57 WAS RELIED UPON. ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO PAGES 58-59 OF THE PAPER WHICH CONTAINS THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2 009 U/S 7 R.W.S 19 OF THE RTI ACT WHEREIN SPECIFIC EMPHASIS WAS LAID AT PARA 6 S O AS TO EMPHASIZE THAT IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT AS DIRECTED BY THE CIC ENQUIRY WA S BEING MADE IN ORDER TO FIX THE RESPONSIBILITY. REFERRING TO THE SAME IT WAS H IS ARGUMENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY BE DIRECTED TO DISCLOSE NOW THE OUTCOME OF THE ENQUIRY FIXING RESPONSIBILITY. IT WAS HIS STAND THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES ON RECORD TO ADDRESS THE ASPECT THAT JUSTICE HAS NOT BEEN DONE AND NOT ONLY WRONG F ACTS AND NAMES HAVE BEEN CARELESSLY RECORDED EVEN FACTS QUA THE ATTENDANCE O N A SPECIFIC DATE COULD BE ADDRESSED ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSEE WAS PUT TO THE UN NECESSARY HARDSHIP OF APPROACHING THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT AND EVE N THEN TOO WHETHER ANY RESPONSIBILITY HAS BEEN FIXED OR NOT IS STILL NOT K NOWN. 9. CONSIDERING THE SAID REQUEST IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO EXTRACT THE RELEVAN T PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER FROM PAGES 3 TO 5 AS UNDER:- DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE LETTERS U/ S 133(6) WAS ISSUED TO THE VARIOUS PARTIES WHICH REMAINED UNCOMPLIED WITH. THE CALL LETTER ISSUED TO M/S STITCH CREATIONS PVT. LTD. 69 FF NEHRU COMMERCIAL COMPLEX LAWRENCE ROAD AMRITSAR-143001 ALSO REMAINED UNATTENDED TO/ NO DET AILS WERE FILED. ANOTHER NOTICE U/ S 133(6) ISSUED TO M/S MORAL PAPERS PVT. LTD. 55/25 KALAB DEVI ROAD MUMBAI- 400002 WAS RECEIVED BACK WITH POSTAL AUTHOR ITIES REMARKS 'NO SUCH COMPANY'. ITI WAS DEPUTED TO CONDUCT ENQUIRIES IN T HE FOLLOWING CASES AS THE SAME WERE AT ONE ADDRESS THAT TWO OF THE REGISTERED ADDRESS OF M/S URANIUM CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND ITS DIRECTORS I .E. M/S JOY COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. AND MEDITATION PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. PRAGATI F OODS GARVIT HOLDINGS C-1/2 MODEL TOWN DELHI-110009. ITI HAS REPORTED THAT NO SUCH COMPANY IS EXISTED AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS AS PER LOCAL ENQUIRIES. THIS IS T HE RESIDENCE OF MR. AJAY KUMAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ITI WAS DEPUTED TO CONDUCT EN QUIRIES OF THE ADDRESS AVAILABLE ON RECORD I.E. (I) C-1/2 MODEL TOWN DELHI. (I) 4353/4C ANSARI ROAD DARYAGANJ DELHI. (II) 4353/4C ANSARI ROAD DARYAGANJ DELHI. HE HAS REPORTED THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES IS EXISTED AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. FURTHER NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS ISSUED TO ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE AND OBTAINED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT. THE PERUSAL OF S TATEMENT OF ACCOUNT REVEALS THAT THE HUGE AMOUNTS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1. 66 CR HAVE BEEN SHOWN TRANSFERRED IN AND OUT THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNTS NUMBER 4433 4592 4598 4588 AND 15713 6 I.T.A .NO.-2229/DEL/2011 MAINTAINED IN OBC DARYAGANJ NEW DELHI. A CALL LETTER DATED 10.09.2008 WAS ISSUED TO THE BA NK TO OBTAIN FOLLOWING DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ABOVE MENTIONED ACCOUNTS: A) NAME & ADDRESS OF THE PARTY AS PER RECORD. B) NAME & ADDRESS OF THE INTRODUCER. C) BANK STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 1.04.2005 TO 31.03.20 06. D) COPY OF ALC OPENING FORM. PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT AND DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FR OM THE BANK REVEAL AS UNDER:- S.NO. A/C NO. NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE CO. NAME OF T HE PERSON ENTITLED TO OPERATE A/C 1. 4433 JOY COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. 4353/4C DARYAGANJ NEW DELHI PREM MAHESHWARI 2. 4598 ROOM YAMS PVT. LTD. PREM MAHESHWARI 3. 4592 MORAL PAPERS PVT. LTD. 55/25 RAM WADI KALA BADEVI ROAD DELHI PREM MAHESHWARI 4. 4588 ROSE ALLOYS PVT.LTD. 55/25 RAMWADI BOMBAY PREM MAHESHWARI 5. 15713 PRAVEN KUMAR MAHESHWARI C-1/2 MODEL TOWN-II N. DELHI PREM MAHESHWARI 6. 4432 URANIUM CONSULTANCY SERVICES P. LTD. C-1/2 MODEL TOWN-II N. DELHI PREM MAHESHWARI AFTER VERIFYING THE ABOVE STATEMENT AND DOCUMENTS A SUMMON U/S 131 WERE ISSUED TO DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH COUNSEL FILED LETTER DATED 22.10.08 AND COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS STATING THAT PERSONAL ATTENDANCE IS NOT REQUIRED. FRESH SUMMONS FOR PERSONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE DIRE CTORS OF THE SAID COMPANY WERE ISSUED ON 23.10.2008 FIXING THE CASE ON 03.11. 2008 NONE ATTENDED. A SUMMON WAS ALSO ISSUED TO MR PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWA RI. NOBODY ATTENDED ON THIS DAY. ON 04.11.2008 A SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED FIXING THE CASE FOR 12.11.2008. NONE ATTENDED. THE VERIFICATION OF BANK STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY USED TO DEPOSIT CHEQUE AND ISSUE THE SAME O N THE SAME DAY OR WITHIN 1 OR 2 DAYS. THE TRANSACTION IS NORMALLY DEALT WITH ACCOUNT NUMBER 4433 4592 4598 4588 AND 15713. THE REFLECTION OF THE STATEMENT REVEALS THAT THERE ARE HUGE TRANSACTIONS OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED AND PAID TO VARIOUS PARTIES. THE FREQUENCY OF DEPOSIT/WITHDRAWAL OF CASH/CHEQUES IN THE BANK ACCO UNTS ARE BY WAY OF TRANSFER/WITHDRAWAL OF CASH/CHEQUES IN THE BANK ACC OUNTS ARE BY WAY OF TRANSFER/CLEARING ENTRIES WHICH ARE IMMEDIATELY TR ANSFERRED OUT. IN THIS REGARD SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY . BUT IN RESPONSE TO WHICH AR ATTENDED AND FILED THE PAPERS. THE PURPOSE OF S ENDING 131 WAS TO OBTAIN STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTORS AS REGARD TO DEBIT AND C REDIT ENTRIES OF THE ACCOUNTS ETC. IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECTORS PURPOSE COULD NOT SOLV ED. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOTHING TO EXPLAIN REGARDING T RANSACTION MADE AMONG THE ABOVE ACCOUNTS. VIDE SHOW CAUSE A FINAL OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO EX PLAIN DEPOSITS OF RS. 1 66 05 000/- AS PER BANK STATEMENT THE ONUS LIES W ITH HIM TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE DEPOSITS/TRANSACTIONS IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT. 7 I.T.A .NO.-2229/DEL/2011 IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE CHANGED ITS COUNS EL AND FILED A REPLY. PERUSAL OF REPLY REVEALS AND ENABLES TO REACH ITS CONCLUSIO N SO AS TO COMPLETE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS AS UNDER: 1. THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT OPER ATIONAL ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS. MOREOVER HE HAS NOT NARRATED ANY REASONS FOR AUTHORIZING PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWARI TO OPERATE THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ALL THE COMPANIES 2. FURTHER COMPANY HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR NON CO MPLIANCE OF SUMMONS; TO. SH PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWARI AND ARVIND KUMAR AND MS. RUKMANI DEVI 3. THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE REVEALS THAT THE COMPANY I S DOING BUSINESS WITH ABOVE FIVE COMPANIES MERELY DOING BU SINESS WITH THE OTHER COMPANIES 4. PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ABOVE COMPANIE S AND ITS TRANSACTIONS REVEALS THAT THERE IS JUT MAKE-BELIEF AFFAIRS. 5. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED CONFIRMATION OF TH E TRANSACTIONS BUT MERE COLOURING IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT TRANSACTIO N IS GENUINE. ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE THAT THE COMPA NIES WITH WHICH IT IS MAKING TRANSACTION ARE IN EXISTENCE. SINCE THE A SSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION REGARDING EXI STENCE OF THE COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AC CEPT ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION. 6. M/S ROOP YAMS CO. HAS GIVEN ADDRESS OF MUMBAI WHEREAS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT THEY HAVE MENTIONED DELH REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THE COMPANY. ANOTHER THING THAT THE DEPARTMENT COUNT NO T UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMPANY IS IN SO CALLED OPERATION IN MUMBAI HOW COME THEY OPERATE BANK ACCOUNT IN DELHI. 7. SIMILARLY MORAL PAPERS PVT. LTD. 55/25 KOLABA DEVI ROAD MUMBAI. THE CALL LETTERS ISSUED WERE RECEIVED BACK WITH REM ARKS 'NO SUCH COMPANY' BUT ITS BANK ACCOUNT IS BEING MA INTAINED IN DELHI. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS. THE VALUE OF THE DEPOSITS IS HEREBY DEEMED TO BE TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR. IN VIEW OF ABOVE 1 AM CONSTRAINED TO MAKE THE ADDITIONS OF DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 66 05 000/- AS UNEXPLAINED UNVERIFIABLE AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. ' 10. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASS ESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE WHOM BASED ON INFORMATION SOUGH T UNDER THE RTI ACT 2005 WHICH WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE CPIO AGAINS T WHICH THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE CIC. DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS WOULD BE EVIDENT AT PAGE 6 OF PARA 4.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE CIT(A) SOUGHT REMAND REPORT F ROM THE AO WHEREIN HE SAYS THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE NATURE OF THE BUSIN ESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TAKEN AS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES FINAN CE AND INVESTMENT ETC INSTEAD OF 8 I.T.A .NO.-2229/DEL/2011 CONSULTANCY. ACCORDINGLY THE CIT(A) WAS REQUESTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE CIT(A) CONCLUDES THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO OFFER ITS EXPLANATION ON 12.11.2008 WAS ALREADY GRANTED ON WHICH DATE THE WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS WERE FILED AT THE DAK COUNTER AND IN REGARD TO PRODUCING THE DIRECTOR SH RI. PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWARI FOR VERIFICATION IT WAS MERELY STATED THAT ALL INF ORMATION IS PLACED ON RECORD. 11. THE ARGUMENTS THAT SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWAR I WAS AN ATTORNEY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF SIGNING OF BANK ACCOUNT ON BEHAL F OF THE COMPANY AS REQUESTED TO HIM FROM THE COMPANY BECAUSE THE DIRECTORS WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT DELHI WAS ALSO OFFERED. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS ALSO OBJECTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT OPERATED BY SH.PRAVEEEN KUMAR M AHESHWARI. THE STAND WAS FOUND CONTRADICTORY AS IT WAS VERIFIED FROM THE ORI ENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE DARYAGANJ NEW DELHI THAT THE TRANSACTIONS SPECIFI CALLY FROM THE BANK A/C NOS.- 4432 4433 4592 4598 4588 AND 15713 NORMALLY SHO WED THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED BY THE CHEQUE AND WITHDRAWN BY CHEQUE ON THE SAME DAY OR WITHIN TWO OR THREE DAYS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS CONC LUDED THAT THE DIFFERENT TRANSACTIONS APPEARED TO BE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES A S SUCH IN ORDER TO VERIFY IT THE CIT(A) HELD IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE DIRECTORS ON OATH WHO WERE NOT PRESENT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER RECORDS THAT BEFORE SENDING THE REMAND REPORT THE AO HAD GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE TO APPEAR HOWEVER ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E 28.09.2010 THE ADJOURNMENT WAS SENT AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 08.10.2010 ON WHICH DATE NO ONE WAS PR ESENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD NOTHING FURTHER TO STATE. THE SAID REMAND REPORT WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESS EE AS PER PARA 4.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN REPLY IT WAS STATED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS BEEN IN BUSINESS OF TRADING SHARES FINANCE AND INVESTMENT SINCE THE VE RY BEGINNING I.E FROM 1993. THE SALE TRANSACTIONS (ROUTINE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS) W OULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE 9 I.T.A .NO.-2229/DEL/2011 NOT GENUINE WHEN THE OPENING STOCK OF SHARES OF PUR CHASES HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE GENUINE. LD. AR THROUGH HIS SYNOPSIS FILED IN THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE US HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK PAGE-4 BEING A COPY OF THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. REFERRING TO THE SAME IT WAS URGED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD AN OPENING STOCK OF RS.4 54 25 450/- OUT OF WHICH IT HAD MADE SALES OF RS.1 38 20 000/- EVIDENCED BY THE P&L A/C AND THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER HAD A CLOSI NG STOCK OF THE RS.3 18 05 450/-. REVERTING BACK TO THE IMPUGNED O RDER IT IS SEEN THAT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) BY WAY OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS SP ECIFICALLY ALLUDED TO AT PAGE 10 PARA 4.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT WAS FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE AOS LETTER DATED 04.11.2008 REFERRED TO IN THE REMAND REPORT WAS REP LIED TO BY LETTER DATED 12.11.2008 WHICH HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE AO AND THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER THE RTI ACT SHOWS THAT IT IS AVAILABLE ON THE ASSES SMENT RECORDS. THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SAME WAS STATED TO BE HAVE BEEN ENCLOS ED IN THE EARLIER SUBMISSIONS DATED 11.12.2009. ACCORDINGLY BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTS ASPERSIONS WERE CAST ON THE INTENTION OF THE AO WHICH CAME TO LIGHT ACCORDI NG TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER THE RECEIPT OF INFORMATION UNDER THE RTI ACT. SIMILARL Y IT WAS ARGUED THE REPLY OF THE DIRECTOR IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 131 DATED 03.11. 2008 WAS ALSO RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT WHICH WAS ALSO REPLIED UPON WHICH AGAIN ADD RESSES THE INTENTION OF THE AO. SPECIFIC EMPHASIS WAS LAID ON LETTER DATED 12. 11.2008 DELIVERED AT THE DAK COUNTER AT PAGE 2 PARA 6 FILED ON AN EARLIER DATE. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT UPTO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE FUNCTIONED FROM TH E SAME PREMISES THEREAFTER IT STARTED ITS ACTIVITIES FROM C-1/2 MODEL TOWN DELH I WHICH IS THE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF THE DIRECTOR. THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY IT WAS SUBMITTED ARE NOT NECESSARILY KNOWN TO THE WORLD AT LARGE AND THIS SITUATION IS NOT PECULIAR TO THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS ONLY AS THERE ARE VARIOUS BUSINESS ENTITIES CARRYING OUT THEIR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE NOT NECESSARILY KNOWN TO WORLD AT LARGE AND WOULD BE 10 I.T.A .NO.-2229/DEL/2011 KNOWN ONLY TO THE INTERESTED PERSONS. IN THESE CIRC UMSTANCES TO CONCLUDE THAT THE BUSINESS ENTITY WAS NOT CARRYING OUT ANY BUSINESS A CTIVITY ON THE BASIS OF PERSONS WHO HAVE NO DEALING WITH THE BUSINESS ENTITIES IS O F NO RELEVANCE OR RELIANCE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE REPLY OF THE PARTIES F ROM WHOM INFORMATION HAD BEEN SOUGHT U/S 133(6) WHO HAD DEALINGS WITH ASSESSEES COMPANY WHO HAVE CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS. THE TRANSACTIONS WERE STATED TO BE ROUTED THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNELS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITH SUP PORTING EVIDENCE EXPLAINING THE PRESENCE OF DIRECTORS. THE FOLLOWING EXTRACT O F PAGE 11 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- AS FAR AS ISSUE FOR PERSONAL PRESENCE OF THE DIREC TORS IS CONCERNED IT IS REITERATED THAT ON 12.11.2007 MR. ARVIND MAHESHWARI ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE CO. WENT WITH ANOTHER AR. MR. SUBHASH GARG BUT NEITHER THE AR WAS ATTENDED NOR THE DIRECTOR MR. ARVIND MAHESHWARI . 12. IT WAS REITERATED THAT THERE IS NO PREM MAHESHW ARI AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE THE BANK ACCOUNT AND ONLY SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWARI IS AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE THE BANK ACCOUNT THAT ARRANGEMENT HAS BEEN DONE FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE DIRECTORS. ACCORDINGLY THE AOS OBSERVATION THAT MISLEADING SU BMISSIONS ARE BEING MADE TO DIVERT THE AUTHORITYS ATTENTION FROM MAJOR ISSUES ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AND FILED ONLY FA CTUAL AND LEGAL SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO THE OBJECTION OF THE AO IN THE REMAND PRO CEEDINGS ON THE ADJOURNED DATED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DID ATTEND BUT HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO SUBMIT ANY MATERI AL ACCORDINGLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT REQUIRED TO SUBMIT ANY SPE CIFIC INFORMATION AND WHATEVER INFORMATION WAS NECESSARY WAS ALREADY SUBM ITTED THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE FAULTED. FOR READY-REFERENCE THE SAID OBJECTION AT PAGE 12 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER:- IN REGARD TO NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE CO. FOR REMAND REPORT IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT ON THE ADJOURNED DATE THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE CO. ATTENDED THE 11 I.T.A .NO.-2229/DEL/2011 ESTEEM OFFICE OF THE AO BUT HE WAS NOT SPECIFIED TO SUBMIT ANY MATERIAL OR INFORMATION. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE SUBMITTED. SINCE A LL INFORMATION/MATERIAL WERE ALREADY ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. 13. A PERUSAL OF PAGE 13 PARA 4.3 OF THE IMPUGNED O RDER SHOWS THAT THE SAID REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FORWARDED TO THE AO WHO S UBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 19.12.2010 AND THE INCORRECT MENTIONING OF PR EM MAHESHWARI INSTEAD OF PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWARI WAS ACCEPTED. SIMILARLY T HE NAME PAWAN KUMAR MAHESHWARI WRONGLY MENTIONED IN EARLIER REMAND REPO RT WAS ACCEPTED AS MISTAKE AND REQUESTED THAT IT SHOULD BE READ AS PRAVEEN KU MAR MAHESHWARI. THE SAID REPLY WAS ALSO MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WHO FURTHER OBJECTED THAT THE NAME OF THE DIRECTOR HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE AO AS ARVIND KUMAR MODI INSTEAD OF ARVIND KUMAR MAHESHWARI AND MERELY BECAUSE THE OPERATION O F THE BANK ACCOUNT ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY FOR FACILIT ATING SMOOTH FUNCTIONING DOES NOT MAKE THE TRANSACTION AS NON-GENUINE AS IT IS WELL SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCES. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER FURTHER SHOWS THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE THE CIT(A) CONCLUDES ON FACTS AS UNDER :- 4.5. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE BODY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IN TWO REMAND REPORTS REPLY OF HE APPEL LANT FILED AGAINST THE REMAND REPORTS AS WELL AS VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS FILED FROM TIME TO TIME. IN THIS CASE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT BY OBSERVING THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE O F THE DEPOSITS. THE ADDITION IS MAINLY BASED ON THE FACT THAT FREQUENCY OF DEPOS IT WITHDRAWAL OF CASH/CHEQUES IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE BY WAY OF TRA NSFER/CLEARING ENTRIES WHICH ARE IMMEDIATELY TRANSFERRED OUT AND OA HAS AL SO SUMMONED TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. HOWEVER. DIRECTORS HAD NOT ATTENDED BEFORE THE AO RATHER SOME PAPERS WERE FILED BY THE AR. WHILE CONCLUDING THE ISSUE THE AO HAS SUMMARIZED THE MATTER WHERE HE HAS ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION BY OBSERVING C ERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN THIS REGARD. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS VARIOUS DETAILS WERE FILED FROM TIME TO TIME. FURTHERMORE IN THE REMAND REPOR T ALSO AO HAS VERY SPECIFICALLY AND CATEGORICALLY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE ABOUT OPERATION OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AND INFORMATION HAS BEEN COLLECTED U/S 133( 6) OF THE IT ACT THAT SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWARI IS OPERATING THE BANK ACCO UNT. IN THIS REGARD AO HAS CLARIFIED VIDE LETTER DATED 9.12.2010 THAT NAME OF THE PERSON IS PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWARI. THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR COMMITTED BY THE AO HAS ALSO 12 I.T.A .NO.-2229/DEL/2011 BEEN MENTIONED AND COPY OF SUMMON ISSUED TO HIM IS ALSO BEEN ATTACHED. SO OBSERVATION WITH REGARD TO MENTIONING OF THE NAME H AS BEEN CLARIFIED BY THE AO. SO IT IS CLEAR THAT NAME OF THE PERSON MANAGING THE ACCOUNTS IS PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWARI. OPPORTUNITY HAS ALSO BEEN GRANTED TO THE LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT IN RESPONSE TO WHICH HE HAS POINTED OUT A NOTHER MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT IN RESPECT OF NAME O F DIRECTOR IS ACTUALLY ARVIND KUMAR MAHESHWARI AND NOT ARVIND KUMAR MODI. 4.6. SO AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS DETAILS FILED BY THE ID.AR OF THE APPELLANT AND REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT T HE ISSUE IS THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE NAME OF M/S. JOY COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. ROOP YAMS PVT.LTD. MORAL PAPERS PVT. LTD. ROSE ALLOYS PVT. LTD. ARE BEING MANAGED AND OPERATED BY SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWA RI WHICH HAS BEEN CLARIFIED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 9.12 .2010 ABOUT WHICH AR WAS GRANTED OPPORTUNITY WHEREIN HE HAS NOT CONTROVERTE D THIS FACT THAT PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWARI IS THE PERSON WHO IS THE AUTHORIZE D PERSON TO OPERATE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY ON BEHALF OF DIRECTOR SHRI A RVIND KUMAR MAHESHWARI. NOW THIS FACT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT EVEN IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY HEARING DATED 10.9.20 I 0 AND 8.10.2011 WHICH WAS NOT ATTENDED. SO AFTER TAKING INTO THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE REMAND REPORT THE MATTER I S CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS PAPER COMPANIES WHOSE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE BEI NG MANAGED BY SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWARI WHO WAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY SHRI ARVIND KUMAR MAHESHWARI. VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. 13.1. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE JUDG EMENT OF CIT VS OASIS HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. 51 DTR 68 (DELHI); AND ITO VS . SOUTH EAST IMPEX (P.) LTD. (2010) 41 DTR (DEL.) (TRIB) 1. 13.2. ON THE BASIS OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES HE CONCLU DES IN PARA 4.8 THAT FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS AS WELL AS THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T AVAILED OF THE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO IT BY THE AO AS SUCH THERE I S A STRONG CASE THAT THE AFFAIRS ARE BEING MANAGED AND ARE IN THE NATURE OF ACCOMMODATIO N ENTRY AND AFTER EXTRACTING CERTAIN PORTIONS FROM THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 29.07.2009 U/S 7 OF RTI ACT 2005 RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE CIC DATED 13 I.T.A .NO.-2229/DEL/2011 03.07.2009 THE CIT(A) CONCLUDES THAT SUFFICIENT OPP ORTUNITY HAS ALREADY BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER :- FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER IN THE CASE WHEREIN VIDE PARA 4 C OR DER DATED 3.7.2009 THE HONBLE CIC HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER :- AS FAR AS OTHER PARAS ARE CONCERNED THEY ESSENTIA LLY RELATE TO THE MERITS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMPET ENT AUTHORITY. AS PER DECISION OF THIS COMMISSION IN APPEAL NO.-CIC/A T/A/2006/00596 DATED 18/09/2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA VS ITAT) IT H AS BEEN HELD THAT THE APPELLANT CANNOT TAKE RECOURSE TO THE RTI ACT TO CHALLENGE A JUDICIAL/QUASI JUDICIAL DECISION AND IF THE APPELLA NT IS AGGRIEVED THE REMEDY LIES ELSEWHERE. WE CONCUR WITH THIS DECISIO N. SO IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION OBJECTION RAISED VIDE PARA 13 OF LETTER DATED 31.1.2009 WRITTEN BY DIRECTOR OF COMPANY RAISING QU ERY IN THIS REGARD HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED. SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO LD. AR DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS BY AO BUT HE DID NOT A VAILED IT. 13.3. VIDE THE CULMINATING PARAGRAPH 4.12 HE DECIDE S THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT PR OCEEDINGS. THE SAME IS ALSO REPRODUCED HERE UNDER:- 4.2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AS WELL AS HONBLE ITAT DELHI IT IS HELD THAT THREE INGRE DIENTS OF SECTION 68 HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD I.E IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION . AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE AO IN THE BODY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER VARIOUS OPPORTU NITIES WERE GIVEN BUT NOT AVAILED. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDI NGS PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN WHICH HAS NOT BEEN AVAILED. IT HAS ALSO BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE AO THAT ONE SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWARI WHO IS AUTHO RIZED SIGNATORY WAS FOUND TO BE MANAGING VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE N AME OF VARIOUS COMPANIES. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY LD. AR AS TO WHY SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR MAHESHWARI WAS WORKING AS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY TO OPERATE VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS PERTAINING TO DIFFERENT COMPA NIES. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LOOKING AT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE RELEVANT INFORMATION QUA THE ASSESSEES ATTENDANCE ON A SPECIFIC DATE BEFORE THE AO IS CONCERNED HOW THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN INITIALLY BLOCKED AND THEREAFT ER MADE AVAILABLE ONLY AS A 14 I.T.A .NO.-2229/DEL/2011 RESULT OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIC THERE CAN BE NO TWO OPINIONS THAT JUSTICE HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THE ACTIONS OF THE AO IN MIS-RECORDING SUPPRESSING AND THEREAFTER OBSTRUCTING NECESSARY FLOW OF INFORMATION NAMELY R ECEIPT OF REPLY RECEIVED BY A DIRECTOR DOES NOT SPEAK WELL OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED. THE CARELESSNESS IN RECORDING OF NAMES OF THE PERSON EMPOWERED TO OPERATE THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE CARELESSNESS IN N OT RECORDING THE CORRECT NAME OF THE DIRECTOR THOUGH ACCEPTED IN THE REMAND PROCEEDI NGS LEAVES MUCH TO BE DESIRED AND AT THE LEAST COMPLETELY FEELS TO INSPIRE ANY CO NFIDENCE IN THE PROCEEDINGS WHATSOEVER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS STA TED IN ITS REPLY DATED 29.07.2009 (COPY AT PAGES 58-59) OF THE PAPER BOOK VIDE PARA 6 THAT QUA THE REPLY OF THE DIRECTOR SENT THROUGH SPEED POST VIDE LETTER DATED 03.11.2008 THE SAME IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AS PER THE DIRECTION OF CIC ENQUIRY WAS BEING CONDUCTED AND RESPONSIBILITY AS DEEMED FIT WOULD BE ACCORDING LY FIXED. WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE REPLY HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED UP WIT H APPROPRIATE ACTION HOWEVER THE FACT REMAINS THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE JUSTICE HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THE TAX COLLECTING AUTHORITY IS PRESUMED TO ACT FAIRLY AND TRANSPARENTLY WHILE EXERCISING ITS QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS. RECORDING OF FACTS CORRECTL Y IS THE LEAST WHICH IS EXPECTED IN THIS EXERCISE. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THOUGH NUMEROUS ARGUMENTS ON FACTS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO STATEMENT OF UNCONCERNED PERSONS RELIED UPON IN REGARD TO THE FUNCTIONING OF THE ASSESSEE FROM A SPECIFIC PLACE AND IGNORING THE STATEMENTS OF CONCERNED PERS ONS FURNISHED IN RESPONSE TO INFORMATION SOUGH UNDER SECTION 133(6) OR IN REGAR D TO THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES QUA THE GENUINENESS OF EMPOWERING A SPECIFIC PERSON TO OPERATE THE BANK ACCOUNTS ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTORS WE DO NOT ADDRESS THESE AS THE SAID ISSUE THOUGH ARGUED BY THE LD. AR WAS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE LD. SR. DR WHO HAS ONLY RESPONDED TO THE REQUEST OF THE LD. AR SEEKING THE ISSUE MAY BE REST ORED AND IN THIS RESPONSE TO RECAPITULATE LD. SR. DR HAS RELYING ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAINLY CONFINED HIMSELF 15 I.T.A .NO.-2229/DEL/2011 TO STATING THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE IS RESTORED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADDRESS THESE ARG UMENTS AT THIS STAGE ANY VIEW EXPRESSED NOW WOULD PRE-DECIDE THE ISSUE WHEREIN BO TH SIDES HAVE NOT ADVANCED THEIR ARGUMENT. EVEN OTHERWISE AT THE OPENING THE LD. AR HAS ALSO ONLY CONFINED HIMSELF TO THE REQUEST THAT THE ISSUE BE RESTORED F OR VERIFICATION ON FACTS. IN THESE AFORE-MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO DIRECTING HIM TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT DE-NOVO. THE GROUND S RAISED ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH OF APRIL 2014. SD/- SD/- (J.S.REDDY) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:- 11/04/2014 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGI STRAR ITAT NEW DELHI