M/s. Pratistha Commercial Pvt. Ltd., , Kolkata v. DCIT, Circle - 9(2), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 866/KOL/2018 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2019 | Result: Dismissed

Our System has flagged this appeal as eligible for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. If you are party to this appeal, get on a Free Consultation Call with our team of Legal Experts who shall guide you as to how you can save huge Interest and Penalty in VSV Scheme.


Apply Now
        
Try VSV Calculator

Appeal Details

RSA Number 86623514 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AABCP5603Q
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 866/KOL/2018
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Pratistha Commercial Pvt. Ltd., , Kolkata
Respondent DCIT, Circle - 9(2), Kolkata , Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 08-11-2019
Date Of Final Hearing 22-10-2019
Next Hearing Date 22-10-2019
Last Hearing Date 03-09-2019
First Hearing Date 19-09-2019
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 02-05-2018
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B BENCH KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S.S. GODARA HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A. NO. 866/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. PRATISTHA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD..............APPELLANT 107 4 TH FLOOR ROOM NO. 401 OLD CHINA BAZAAR STREET BRABOURNE ROAD KOLKATA 700 001 [PAN: AABCP 5603 Q] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-9(2) KOLKATA........................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI A.K. TIBREWAL FCA & SHRI AMIT AGARWAL ADVOCATE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SMT. RANU BISWAS ADDL. CIT D/R APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 22 ND 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 8 TH 2019 O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY AM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 3 KOLKATA (HEREINAFTER THE LD.CIT(A)) PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) DT. 04/04/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3 KOLKATA ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 00 17 060/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND ARBITRARY GROUNDS. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3 KOLKATA ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 00 17 060/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON THE BASIS OF JUDGMENTS WHICH ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS WELL AS ON LAW. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3 KOLKATA ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF SHARE CAPITAL OF RS. 2 00 17 060/- MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IN DISREGARD OF THE BINDING JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE APEX COURT HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AND THE HON'BLE ITATS WHICH DIRECTLY LAYS DOWN RATIO ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION OF SHARE CAPITAL UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3 KOLKATA ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2 060/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER OR DELETE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN ADDIT FOLLOWS:- (I) THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.2 00 15 000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 INCLUDED THE SUM OF RS.55 30 000 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THUS COULD NOT HAD BEEN ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR CORRESPONDING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 2.1. THIS GROUND IS A LEGAL GROUND AND DOES NOT HENCE WE ADMIT THE SAME. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IT RAISED SHARE CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 80 00 000 OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT WAS NON- COMPLIANCE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OF SHARE APPLICANTS/HOLDERS DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S 131 OF THE ACT. HE HELD THAT HENCE PROVED. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESS 4. FURTHER A GGRIEVED THE 5. 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: 5.1. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE DISCHARGED ITS PRIMARY ONUS BY PRODUCTION OF ALL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN THE AS NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 23/02/2015 TO THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 29/03/2015 ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO NOT EXAMINED ALL THE DETAILS FILED BY THE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLICANTS/HOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVE NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM NOR WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. HE PRAYED THAT T HE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN ADDIT IONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH READS AS THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.2 00 15 000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 INCLUDED THE SUM OF RS.55 30 000 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 -10 TO 2011- 12 WHICH DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THUS COULD NOT HAD BEEN ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR CORRESPONDING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 -13. THIS GROUND IS A LEGAL GROUND AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ENQUIRY INTO FACTS THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IT RAISED SHARE 1 80 00 000 /- INCLUDING SHARE PREMIUM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT OF THIS AMOUNT FOR THE REASON THAT THERE COMPLIANCE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . THERE WAS NON OF SHARE APPLICANTS/HOLDERS DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S HE HELD THAT HENCE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT COULD NOT BE AGGRIEVED THE ASSESS EE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL WITHOUT SUCCESS. GGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 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: - BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS PRIMARY ONUS BY PRODUCTION OF ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS CASE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN THE AS SESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY AS NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 23/02/2015 TO THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 29/03/2015 HAD ALSO NOT EXAMINED ALL THE DETAILS FILED BY THE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS/HOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVE NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM NOR WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. HE HE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR I.T.A. NO. 866/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. PRATISTHA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD IONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH READS AS THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.2 00 15 000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 INCLUDED THE IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS 12 WHICH DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THUS COULD NOT HAD BEEN ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IN REQUIRE ENQUIRY INTO FACTS THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IT RAISED SHARE SHARE PREMIUM. THE ASSESSING OF THIS AMOUNT FOR THE REASON THAT THERE NON -APPEARANCE OF SHARE APPLICANTS/HOLDERS DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT COULD NOT BE EE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL WITHOUT SUCCESS. 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 ASSESSEE HAS RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN THIS CASE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OPPORTUNITY AS THE NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 23/02/2015 TO THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 29/03/2015 THE ASSESSEE. HE ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS/HOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVE NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM NOR WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. HE HE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH A DIRECTION TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5.2. THE LD. D/R THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASID E TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUD ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS THERE WAS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CASE HAS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED. THERE WAS NO PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT. SUFFICIENT TIME WAS NOT PROVIDED. WE FIND THAT THIS BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ALL S THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 6.1. IN THE CASE OF SRIRAM TIE UP PVT. LTD. SUPRA AT PARA 6 AND 7 HELD AS FOLLOWS: 6. IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUKANYA MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. VS 291/KOL/2016 DATED 15.12.2017) CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE CO TRIBUNAL AND THE SIMILAR ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IS RESTORED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. IN ALMOST SIMILAR SITUATION AFTER RECORDING ITS OBSERVATIONS / FINDINGS AS UNDER: WE NOTE THAT THE AO PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT H DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 16.08.2013 AND HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE COPY OF FINAL ACCOUNT I. T. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BANK STATEMENT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD EVIDENCING THE RECEI PT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE SHARE APPLICANTS. THEREAFTER THE AO MAKES CERTAIN INFERENCES BASED ON THE LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS AND TAKING NOTE OF THE BANK STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT AFTER THE INITIAL NOTICE DATED 16.08.2013 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 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 10.03.20 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 THAT HE HAS ISSUED SUMMONS ON 24.03.2014 TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUC 26.03.2014 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONTENDED THAT IT HAS NOT RECEIVED THE SAID SUMMON AND THEREFORE COULD NOT MAKE THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE. THE 3 FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH A DIRECTION TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE THE LD. D/R THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED THAT THE E TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUD ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS THERE WAS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CASE HAS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS NO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED. THERE WAS NO PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT. SUFFICIENT TIME WAS NOT WE FIND THAT THIS BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ALL S UCH CASES HAS BEEN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. IN THE CASE OF SRIRAM TIE UP PVT. LTD. SUPRA AT PARA 6 AND 7 HELD AS FOLLOWS: IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUKANYA MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. VS ITO (ITA 291/KOL/2016 DATED 15.12.2017) CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE SIMILAR ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IS RESTORED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. IN ALMOST SIMILAR SITUATION AFTER RECORDING ITS OBSERVATIONS / FINDINGS AS WE NOTE THAT THE AO PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT H AD TAKEN NOTE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 16.08.2013 AND HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE COPY OF FINAL ACCOUNT I. T. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BANK STATEMENT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD EVIDENCING PT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE SHARE APPLICANTS. THEREAFTER THE AO MAKES CERTAIN INFERENCES BASED ON THE LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS AND TAKING NOTE OF THE BANK STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 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 10.03.20 14. 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 THAT HE HAS ISSUED SUMMONS ON 24.03.2014 TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUC E THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY BEFORE HIM ON 26.03.2014 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONTENDED THAT IT HAS NOT RECEIVED THE SAID SUMMON AND THEREFORE COULD NOT MAKE THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE. THE I.T.A. NO. 866/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. PRATISTHA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH A DIRECTION TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE THE LD. D/R THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED THAT THE E TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUD ICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS THERE WAS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CASE HAS TO BE OFFICER AS NO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED. THERE WAS NO PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT. SUFFICIENT TIME WAS NOT UCH CASES HAS BEEN RESTORING IN THE CASE OF SRIRAM TIE UP PVT. LTD. SUPRA AT PARA 6 AND 7 HELD AS FOLLOWS: ITO (ITA 291/KOL/2016 DATED 15.12.2017) CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE SIMILAR ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION CONTRIBUTION BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IS RESTORED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. IN ALMOST SIMILAR SITUATION AFTER RECORDING ITS OBSERVATIONS / FINDINGS AS AD TAKEN NOTE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 16.08.2013 AND HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE COPY OF FINAL ACCOUNT I. T. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BANK STATEMENT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD EVIDENCING PT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE SHARE APPLICANTS. THEREAFTER THE AO MAKES CERTAIN INFERENCES BASED ON THE LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS AND TAKING NOTE OF THE BANK STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE 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 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 14. 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 THAT HE HAS ISSUED SUMMONS ON 24.03.2014 TO THE E THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY BEFORE HIM ON 26.03.2014 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONTENDED THAT IT HAS NOT RECEIVED THE SAID SUMMON AND THEREFORE COULD NOT MAKE THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE. THE AO HAS DRAWN ADVERSE CONCLUSION BASICALLY BECAUSE OF NON THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES. WE NOTE THAT INITIALLY THE AO STARTED THE ENQUIRY ON 16.08.2013 WHICH WAS COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS WHICH HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE AO. THEREAFTER THE FAG END OF FEBRUARY 2014 AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INFORMED THE AO THAT THEIR DIRECTORS WERE OUT OF STATION TILL 23.03.2014. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID FACTS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO SO THERE WAS A LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AS AFORESAID THEREFORE IT HAS TO GO BACK TO AO. 8. WE ALSO NOTE THAT LD. CIT WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO WHICH WAS PASSED U/S. 147/143(3) OF THE ACT GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW FOR CONDUCTING DEEP INVESTIGATION. WE ALSO NOTE THAT SIMILARLY PLACED ASSESSEES HAD CHALLENGED THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THOSE CASES ONE OF IT OF SUB HA LAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT IN ITA NO. 1104/KOL/2014 DATED 30.07.2015 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL WAS PLEASED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT WHICH WE LEARN TO HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE 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 CITS 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 ASS COMPANIES HAD NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM ON 26.03.2014 AND T AFTER TAKING NOTE THAT NONE APPEARED ON 26.03.2014 CONCLUDED ON THE SAME DAY 26.03.2014 THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED ALONG WITH PREMIU M AMOUNTING TO RS.8 06 00 000/ UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT AFTER LOOKING INTO THE PERNICIOUS PRACTICE OF CONVERTING BLACK MONEY INTO WHITE MONEY HAS GIVEN THE GUIDELINES TO AO AS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED TO FIND OUT THE SOURCE OF SOURCE. SINCE SIMILAR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE SLP HAS BEEN DISMISSE D BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT SIMILAR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO AS DIRECTED BY THE LD. CIT. WE TAKE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT WITH HIS EXPERIENCE AND WISDOM HAS GIVEN CERTAIN GUIDELINES IN THE BACKDROP OF BLACK MONEY MENACE SHOULD HAVE AS DIRECTED BY HIM. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE INVESTIGATING GUIDELINES AND METHOD AS DIRECTED BY HIM TO UNEARTH THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE IDENTITY GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THREE JUDGES BENCH IN THE CASE OF TIN BOX (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT SINCE THERE WAS LACK OF OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ITSELF THE ASSESSMENT NEEDS TO BE DONE AFRESH AND THEREBY REVERSED THE HO TRIBUNAL AND CIT(A)S ORDERS AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO AO FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT. SO SINCE THERE WAS LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AS AFORESTATED IT HAS TO GO BACK TO AO. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 525/2014 4 AO HAS DRAWN ADVERSE CONCLUSION BASICALLY BECAUSE OF NON - APPEARANC THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES. WE NOTE THAT INITIALLY THE AO STARTED THE ENQUIRY ON 16.08.2013 WHICH WAS COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS WHICH HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE AO. THEREAFTER THE ENQUIRY WAS STARTED ONLY AT THE FAG END OF FEBRUARY 2014 AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INFORMED THE AO THAT THEIR DIRECTORS WERE OUT OF STATION TILL 23.03.2014. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID FACTS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO SO THERE WAS A LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AS AFORESAID THEREFORE IT HAS TO GO BACK TO AO. WE ALSO NOTE THAT LD. CIT WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO WHICH WAS PASSED U/S. 147/143(3) OF THE ACT THE LD. CIT GAVE CERTAIN GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW FOR CONDUCTING DEEP INVESTIGATION. WE ALSO NOTE THAT SIMILARLY PLACED ASSESSEES HAD CHALLENGED THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THOSE CASES ONE OF IT OF HA LAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT IN ITA NO. 1104/KOL/2014 DATED 30.07.2015 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL WAS PLEASED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT WHICH WE LEARN TO HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE SLP PREFERRED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE 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 EFFECT TO THE CITS 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 ASS ESSEE COMPANY AND SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES HAD NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM ON 26.03.2014 AND T AFTER TAKING NOTE THAT NONE APPEARED ON 26.03.2014 CONCLUDED ON THE SAME DAY 26.03.2014 THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED ALONG M AMOUNTING TO RS.8 06 00 000/ - WHICH HAS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT AFTER LOOKING INTO THE PERNICIOUS PRACTICE OF CONVERTING BLACK MONEY INTO WHITE MONEY HAS GIVEN THE GUIDELINES TO AO AS TO HOW THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE CONDUCTED TO FIND OUT THE SOURCE OF SOURCE. SINCE SIMILAR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE SLP HAS BEEN D BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT SIMILAR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO AS DIRECTED BY THE LD. CIT. WE TAKE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT WITH HIS EXPERIENCE AND WISDOM HAS GIVEN CERTAIN GUIDELINES IN THE BACKDROP OF BLACK MONEY MENACE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ENQUIRED INTO AS DIRECTED BY HIM. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE INVESTIGATING GUIDELINES AND METHOD AS DIRECTED BY HIM TO UNEARTH THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE IDENTITY GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THREE JUDGES BENCH IN THE CASE OF TIN BOX (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT SINCE THERE WAS LACK OF OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ITSELF THE ASSESSMENT NEEDS TO BE DONE AFRESH AND THEREBY REVERSED THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT TRIBUNAL AND CIT(A)S ORDERS AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO AO FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT. SO SINCE THERE WAS LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AS AFORESTATED IT HAS TO GO BACK TO AO. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 525/2014 I.T.A. NO. 866/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. PRATISTHA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD APPEARANC E OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES. WE NOTE THAT INITIALLY THE AO STARTED THE ENQUIRY ON 16.08.2013 WHICH WAS COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS WHICH HAS THE ENQUIRY WAS STARTED ONLY AT THE FAG END OF FEBRUARY 2014 AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INFORMED THE AO THAT THEIR DIRECTORS WERE OUT OF STATION TILL 23.03.2014. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID FACTS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO SO THERE WAS A LACK OF WE ALSO NOTE THAT LD. CIT WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO THE LD. CIT GAVE CERTAIN GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW FOR CONDUCTING DEEP INVESTIGATION. WE ALSO NOTE THAT SIMILARLY PLACED ASSESSEES HAD CHALLENGED THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THOSE CASES ONE OF IT OF HA LAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT IN ITA NO. 1104/KOL/2014 DATED 30.07.2015 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL WAS PLEASED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT WHICH WE LEARN TO HAVE BEEN COURT AND THE SLP PREFERRED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE 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 EFFECT TO THE CITS 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 ESSEE COMPANY AND SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES HAD NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM ON 26.03.2014 AND T AFTER TAKING NOTE THAT NONE APPEARED ON 26.03.2014 CONCLUDED ON THE SAME DAY 26.03.2014 THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED ALONG WHICH HAS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT AFTER LOOKING INTO THE PERNICIOUS PRACTICE OF CONVERTING BLACK MONEY TO HOW THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE CONDUCTED TO FIND OUT THE SOURCE OF SOURCE. SINCE SIMILAR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE SLP HAS BEEN D BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT SIMILAR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO AS DIRECTED BY THE LD. CIT. WE TAKE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT WITH HIS EXPERIENCE AND WISDOM HAS GIVEN CERTAIN GUIDELINES IN THE BEEN PROPERLY ENQUIRED INTO AS DIRECTED BY HIM. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE INVESTIGATING GUIDELINES AND METHOD AS DIRECTED BY HIM TO UNEARTH THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE IDENTITY GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THREE JUDGES BENCH IN THE CASE OF TIN BOX (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT SINCE THERE WAS LACK OF OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ITSELF THE ASSESSMENT NBLE HIGH COURT TRIBUNAL AND CIT(A)S ORDERS AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO AO FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT. SO SINCE THERE WAS LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AS AFORESTATED IT HAS TO GO BACK TO AO. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF 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 FOLLOWI CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES OR THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. 42. THE AO HERE MAY HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION TO CONDUCT A PROPER INQUIRY TO TAKE THE MATTER TO LOGICAL CONCLUSION. BUT CIT(APPEALS) HAVING NOTICED WANT OF PROPER INQUIRY COULD NOT HAVE CLOSED THE CHAPTER SIMPLY BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND D THE OBLIGATION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS INDEED OF ITAT TO HAVE ENSURED THAT EFFECTIVE INQUIRY WAS CARRIED OUT PARTICULARLY IN THE FACT OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS REVEA PATTERN OF CASH DEPOSITS OF EQUAL AMOUNTS IN THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS PRECEDING THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. THIS NECESSITATED A DETAILED SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION148 ISSUED BY THE APPEALS IF DEEMED PROPER BY WAY OF MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE A 'FURTHER INQUIRY IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER UNDER SECTION 250(4). HIS APPROACH NOT HAVING BEEN ADOPTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ITAT AND CON THAT OF CIT(APPEALS) CANNOT BE APPROVED OR UPHELD.' IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID ORDER AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN TIN BOX COMPANY (SUPRA) AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 26 BEING UPHELD UP TO THE LEVEL OF APEX COURT AND TAKING NOTE OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURTS ORDER IN JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO TH 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 AUTHORI 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 RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE ON THE ISSUE. 7. THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE ITAT HAS PASSED SIMILAR ORDER IN MANY CASES ON THE SAME ISSUE OF ADDITIONS M ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE ALREADY ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE BEFORE HIM AND ADJUDICATE 5 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 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 FOLLOWI NG THAT SATISFACTION AS TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES OR THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. 42. THE AO HERE MAY HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION TO CONDUCT A PROPER INQUIRY TO TAKE THE MATTER TO LOGICAL CONCLUSION. BUT CIT(APPEALS) HAVING NOTICED WANT OF PROPER INQUIRY COULD NOT HAVE CLOSED THE CHAPTER SIMPLY BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND D ELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE. IT WAS ALSO THE OBLIGATION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS INDEED OF ITAT TO HAVE ENSURED THAT EFFECTIVE INQUIRY WAS CARRIED OUT PARTICULARLY IN THE FACT OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS REVEA L UNIFORM PATTERN OF CASH DEPOSITS OF EQUAL AMOUNTS IN THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS PRECEDING THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. THIS NECESSITATED A DETAILED SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION148 ISSUED BY THE AO AS ALSO THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED AT THE STAGE OF APPEALS IF DEEMED PROPER BY WAY OF MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE A 'FURTHER INQUIRY IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER UNDER SECTION 250(4). HIS APPROACH NOT HAVING BEEN ADOPTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ITAT AND CON SEQUENTLY THAT OF CIT(APPEALS) CANNOT BE APPROVED OR UPHELD.' IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID ORDER AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN TIN BOX COMPANY (SUPRA) AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 26 3 OF THE ACT IN SIMILAR CASES BEING UPHELD UP TO THE LEVEL OF APEX COURT AND TAKING NOTE OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURTS ORDER IN JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO TH 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. WE THEREFORE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND PROPER AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES 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 RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE ON THE ISSUE. THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE ITAT HAS PASSED SIMILAR ORDER IN MANY CASES ON THE SAME ISSUE OF ADDITIONS M ADE U/S 68 OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION . THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE ALREADY ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE BEFORE HIM AND ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE I.T.A. NO. 866/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. PRATISTHA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD DATED 11.03.2015 WHEREIN AFTER NOTICING INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BY AUTHORITIES 41. WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CIT(APPEALS) AND CONSEQUENTLY WITH 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 NG THAT SATISFACTION AS TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES OR THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN 42. THE AO HERE MAY HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION TO CONDUCT A PROPER INQUIRY TO TAKE THE MATTER TO LOGICAL CONCLUSION. BUT CIT(APPEALS) HAVING NOTICED WANT OF PROPER INQUIRY COULD NOT HAVE CLOSED THE CHAPTER ELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE. IT WAS ALSO THE OBLIGATION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS INDEED OF ITAT TO HAVE ENSURED THAT EFFECTIVE INQUIRY WAS CARRIED OUT PARTICULARLY IN THE FACT OF THE L UNIFORM PATTERN OF CASH DEPOSITS OF EQUAL AMOUNTS IN THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS PRECEDING THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. THIS NECESSITATED A DETAILED SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER AO AS ALSO THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED AT THE STAGE OF APPEALS IF DEEMED PROPER BY WAY OF MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE A 'FURTHER INQUIRY IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER UNDER SECTION 250(4). HIS APPROACH SEQUENTLY IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID ORDER AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN TIN BOX COMPANY (SUPRA) AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION 3 OF THE ACT IN SIMILAR CASES BEING UPHELD UP TO THE LEVEL OF APEX COURT AND TAKING NOTE OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURTS ORDER IN JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO TH E FILE OF AO FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT AND TO DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE TO WE THEREFORE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND PROPER AND IN THE INTEREST OF TIES 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 THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE ITAT HAS PASSED SIMILAR ORDER IN MANY CASES ON HAS SET ASIDE THE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE ALREADY ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES THE ISSUE DE NOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT IN THE ORDER PASSED/S 263 OF THE ACT IN ALL SUCH CASES. 8. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO THE ORDERS OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR MATTERS WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AS WELL AS TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN SIMILAR CASES AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE KOLKATA THE SD/- [S.S. GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 08.10.2019 {SC SPS} C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. PRATISTHA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD 107 4 TH FLOOR ROOM NO. 401 OLD CHINA BAZAAR STREET BRABOURNE ROAD KOLKATA 700 001 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR) KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA. 6 ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT IN THE ORDER PASSED/S 263 OF KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR MATTERS WE SET TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FR ESH ADJUDICATION IN WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AS WELL AS TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN SIMILAR CASES ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. KOLKATA THE 8 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019. [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: M/S. PRATISTHA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -9(2) KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR) KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES I.T.A. NO. 866/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. PRATISTHA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT IN THE ORDER PASSED/S 263 OF KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR MATTERS WE SET ESH ADJUDICATION IN WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AS WELL AS TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN SIMILAR CASES E IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES