9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Ld. CIT vide an order dated 26.03.2013 passed under section 263 with the direction to the A.O. to make the assessment afresh after conducting thorough and detailed enquiries regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the share-holders through which the introduction of share capital to the tune of Rs. 9.86 crores was made in the case of the assessee during the year under consideration. In pursuance of the order passed under section 263, a notice dated 07.11.2013 was issued by the A.O. to the assessee fixing the hearing on 21.11.2013. The said notice, however, came back unserved. The authorised representative of the assessee appeared before the A.O. on 26.11.2013 informing that there was a change of address of the registered office of the assessee company. Thereafter, a notice under section 142(1) was issued by the A.O. on 06.02.2014 in response to which the details required by the A.O. were filed by the A.O. on 26.02.2014 including the list of share-holders. The A.O. issued notices under section 133(6) to all the 16 share-holders. He also issued summons to the directors of the assessee company which remained un-complied with. The Inspector attached to his office was depu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the identity and creditworthiness of the share-holders through whom the introduction of share capital to the tune of Rs. 9.86 crores was made in the case of the assessee during the year under consideration. He has contended that although notices under section 133(6) were issued by the A.O. to all the 16 share applicants, the relevant documentary evidence furnished by them in response to the said notices in the form of statement of source of funds, copies of relevant bank statements, copies of allotment advices, copies of IT returns and audited accounts etc. was not taken into consideration by the A.O. while deciding the issue under section 68 and this position clearly evident from the assessment order passed by the A.O. is not disputed even by the learned DR. 5. As further submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee even the summons issued by the A.O. to the directors of the assessee company were not served in time to enable them to comply with the same. He has contended that no further opportunity however was given by the A.O. to the assessee company or even its directors to comply with the requirements and support and substantiate their case by explaining the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company to produce 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-appearance 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 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 fair 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, the Ld. CIT gave certain guidelines to follow for conducting deep investigation. We also note that similarly placed assessees had challenged the exercise of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 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 deleting the additions made. It was also t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
