TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) did not provide despite request on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, we restore the issue in dispute involved in the grounds of the appeal to the file of the AO for deciding afresh with the direction to the assessee to produce all the share applicant parties before the Assessing Officer along with all documentary evidences which it wants to rely upon. The assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. The grounds of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for the statistical purposes. - ITA No. 7696/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2019 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri O.P. Kant, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Advocate For the Respondent : Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 10/09/2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi [in short the Ld. CIT(A)] for assessment year 2013-14 raising following grounds: 1. That the Ld. A.O. erred on facts and in law in issuing/sending notices da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld.CIT(A). In ground No. 1 2, the assessee has raised the issue of violation of the principle of the natural justice, inter alia that notices under section 133(6) were issued by the Assessing Officer at the wrong address to various share subscribers, which had returned back undelivered. In ground No. 3, the assessee has raised that the ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition ignoring the documentary evidences filed. In ground No. 4, the assessee has raised that the ld. CIT(A) has given factually incorrect finding regarding additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962. The ground No. 5 is raised in relation to income tax demand and interest consequent to the addition sustained. 4. The brief facts qua the issue in dispute are that during the year under consideration, the assessee received share application money from following persons: Name of Applicants Amount received CCL International Limited 4,70,75,000 Tanvi Fincap Pvt Ltd 20,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that no one appeared before him except one party namely Sh. Suarabh Goel . The Ld. Assessing Officer made following conclusions as under: a. All the persons has failed to appear before this office to prove their identity except Mr. Surabh Goel. b. Notice u/s. 133(6) has been returned back undelivered creates doubt about the genuinity of the parties. c. No response has been received where notices u/s. 133(6) has been delivered till date of this order. d. Non submission of complete documents by assessee also creates doubt about the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the parties. In view of the conclusions and various decisions relied upon, the ld. Assessing Officer made addition of the entire share application money of ₹ 12,64,35,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 4.2. The ld. CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee filed certain additional evidences along with application under section Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962, which the ld. CIT(A) rejected. The Ld. CIT(A) analysed the documents which were filed by the assessee bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the credit worthiness of applicant. The appellant, even during the appellate proceeding, has failed to explain such transactions. Most importantly, the very fact that one of the applicant, in his statement, has presented facts, that is otherwise false vis a vis the books of accounts of the appellant, goes on in depth to prove that the applicant had simply cooked up an entry, to hide the actual nature of transaction. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee filed a paper-book containing pages 1 to 566 and submitted that the Assessing Officer had not issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act in case of all the parties and whatever notices issued were at wrong address resulting into non-delivery. According to him, the assessee has not been provided opportunity to respond the fact of non-delivery of notice under section 133(6) of the Act. He further referred to page 560 of the paper book which is a copy of letter dated 28/08/2018 filed before the learned CIT(A) requesting to produce all the parties from whom fresh share application money was raised during the year under consideration. The Ld. counsel submitted that the learned CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed. The DR submitted that one of the share applicants was a penny stock company which provided bogus long-term capital gains to various persons. The Ld. DR also relied on decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court dated 17/01/2019 in the case of CIT Vs NDR promoter s private Limited in ITA 49/2018. In view of the arguments, she objected for restoring the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 7. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. On perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A), it is evident that notices under section 133(6) have not been issued to all the share applicant parties and the notices have been issued on the basis of the addresses of the share applicants provided in return of income filed by them for assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has contended that those share applicant parties shifted to new addresses and therefore the notices could not be served upon them. The contention of the Revenue is that onus was on the assessee to provide complete and correct address to the Assessing Officer. In the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that whatever may be the reasons, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
