Nextgen Vyapaar , Kolkata V. Pr.CIT-2, Kolkata

ITA 1176/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6447 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2021
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Audit objection; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Fair market value; Assessment record; Right to appeal; Onus to prove; Revenue expenditure; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 113; 43; 48; 13; 153; 22; 263; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI ABY T. VARKEY, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD..........................................................................................APPELLANT C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES SIDDHA GIBSON 1, GIBSON LANE SUITE -213 2 ND FLOOR KOLKATA 700 069 [PAN : AADCN 5137 H] VS. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA............................................................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI ANAND KR. KEDIA, CIT, D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MARCH 4 TH , 2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 16 TH , 2021 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, (HEREINAFTER THE LD. CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 27/03/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN SHARES AND INVESTMENTS. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 26/09/2012, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.50,302/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 15/03/2015 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2,16,73,630/- INTERALIA MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,16,23,328/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT BEING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND PREMIUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. 2.1. THE LD. PR. CIT, KOLKATA 4, ISSUED A SHOWCAUSE NOTICE DT. 25/07/2016, PROPOSING TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 15/03/2015, BY INVOKING HIS POWERS OF REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE DT. 22/08/2016, THE LD. PR. CIT, KOLKATA -4, PASSED AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 07/09/2016 (FIRST 263 ORDER)SETTING ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 15/03/2015 AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT DE NOVO WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS. AT PARA 4(V) OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 07/09/2016, THE LD. PR. CIT-4, KOLKATA, HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 4(V) CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT OR PASSED ON 15.03.2015 IS SET ASIDE DENOVO WITH A DIRECTION TO AO TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS INVESTORS. A.O. IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS AND ISSUE OF PURCHASE & SALE OF SEEDS. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE TIME BARRING DATE. THE A.O. MUST PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO MEET NATURAL JUSTICE, EQUITY AND FAIRNESS. 2.1.1. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SECOND TIME PASSED AN ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT ON 26/12/2016, DETERMINING THE TOT AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWS:- ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S;142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 16/12/16 AND DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE CASE WAS FIXED FROM TIME TO TIME. SHRI NK GOYAL, FCA & NR OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY APPEARED ON DIFFERENT DATES AND PRODUCED COPY OF ITR, AUDITED ACCOUNTS, COMPUTATION OF INCOME, DETAILS OF DIRECTORS, DETAILS OF BUSINESS INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL, FORM 2& FORM 5, LIST OF SHARE HE ALSO PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BALANCE SHEET ITEMS AND INVESTMENT WHICH A/R ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF BILLS RELATED TO RECORD. THE SAID DETAILS 131 OF THE LT. ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE INVESTOR COMPANIES TO PROVE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS, CREDITWORTHINESS AS REQUIRED BY LD. PR. CIT 07/09/2016. DIRECTORS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES TO WHOM SUMMONS U/S 131 WERE ISSUED HAD APPEARED AND THEIR STATEMENT WERE RECORDED U/S.131 OF THE I.T. ACT ON OATH ALONG WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE CHECKED AND VERIFIE D. THE DIRECTORS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES CONFIRMED HAVING INVESTED IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF INVESTMENT LEDGER IN THEIR COMPANY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT, BANK STATEMENT AND BALANCE SHEET HAVE ALREADY BEEN S UBMITTED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE SOURCE OF FUND, IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS WERE VERIFIED AND FOUND IN ORDER. THE SOURCE OF FUND WAS VERIFIED AND FOUND IN ORDER. TOTAL INCOME IS COMPUTED AS BELOW: TOTAL INCOME AS PER RETUR ASSESSED U/S. 143(3)/263/143(3) AS ABOVE. ISSUE COPY OF THE ORDER, COMPUTATION SHEET AND DEMAND NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 2.2. THE LD. PR. CIT- 4, KOLKATA, ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 28/01/2019 TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, TO SHOWCAUSE AS TO 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 26/12/2016, SHOULD NOT BE REVISED. THE SOLE REASON FOR GIVING S HOWCAUSE NOTICE, IS STATED AS FOLLOWS: 2 4(V) CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT OR PASSED ON 15.03.2015 IS SET ASIDE DENOVO WITH A DIRECTION TO AO TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS INVESTORS. A.O. IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION, IDENTITY OF INVES GENUINENESS AND ISSUE OF PURCHASE & SALE OF SEEDS. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT TIME BARRING DATE. THE A.O. MUST PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO MEET NATURAL JUSTICE, EQUITY AND FAIRNESS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SECOND TIME PASSED AN ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT ON 26/12/2016, AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.50,300/- . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD AS ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S;142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 16/12/16 AND DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE CASE WAS FIXED FROM TIME TO TIME. SHRI NK GOYAL, FCA & NR OF THE ASSESSEE OMPANY APPEARED ON DIFFERENT DATES AND PRODUCED COPY OF ITR, AUDITED ACCOUNTS, COMPUTATION OF INCOME, DETAILS OF DIRECTORS, DETAILS OF BUSINESS ACTIVIT INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL, FORM 2& FORM 5, LIST OF SHARE -HOLDERS, DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT HE ALSO PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING DOCUM ENTS TO EXPLAIN THE BALANCE SHEET ITEMS AND INVESTMENT WHICH IS CHECKED WITH BANK STATEMENT ENTRIES. THE COPIES OF BILLS RELATED TO TRADING IN SEEDS AND THE SAME ARE PLACED ON DETAILS WERE EXAMINE D. THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED & HEARD. SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE LT. ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE INVESTOR COMPANIES TO PROVE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS, CREDITWORTHINESS AS REQUIRED BY LD. PR. CIT - 4, KOLKATA IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 263 D 07/09/2016. DIRECTORS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES TO WHOM SUMMONS U/S 131 WERE ISSUED HAD APPEARED AND THEIR STATEMENT WERE RECORDED U/S.131 OF THE I.T. ACT ON OATH ALONG WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE CHECKED AND D. THE DIRECTORS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES CONFIRMED HAVING INVESTED IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF INVESTMENT LEDGER IN THEIR COMPANY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT, BANK STATEMENT AND BALANCE SHEET HAVE ALREADY UBMITTED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE SOURCE OF FUND, IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS WERE VERIFIED AND FOUND IN ORDER. THE SOURCE OF FUND WAS VERIFIED AND FOUND IN ORDER. TOTAL INCOME IS COMPUTED AS BELOW: TOTAL INCOME AS PER RETUR N : RS. 50,302/- ASSESSED INCOME : RS. 50,302/- ROUNDED OFF : RS.50,300/- ASSESSED U/S. 143(3)/263/143(3) AS ABOVE. ISSUE COPY OF THE ORDER, COMPUTATION SHEET AND DEMAND NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 4, KOLKATA, ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 28/01/2019 TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, TO SHOWCAUSE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 26/12/2016, SHOULD NOT BE REVISED. THE SOLE REASON HOWCAUSE NOTICE, IS STATED AS FOLLOWS: - ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. 4(V) CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED ON 15.03.2015 IS SET ASIDE DENOVO WITH A DIRECTION TO AO TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS INVESTORS. A.O. IS SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION, IDENTITY OF INVES TOR AND ITS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT TIME BARRING DATE. THE A.O. MUST PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SECOND TIME PASSED AN ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT ON 26/12/2016, . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD AS ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S;142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 16/12/16 AND DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE CASE WAS FIXED FROM TIME TO TIME. SHRI NK GOYAL, FCA & NR OF THE ASSESSEE OMPANY APPEARED ON DIFFERENT DATES AND PRODUCED COPY OF ITR, AUDITED ACCOUNTS, ACTIVIT IES, DETAILS OF DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT . ENTS TO EXPLAIN THE BANK STATEMENT ENTRIES. THE THE SAME ARE PLACED ON D. THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED & HEARD. SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE LT. ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE INVESTOR COMPANIES TO PROVE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS, 4, KOLKATA IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 263 D ATED 07/09/2016. DIRECTORS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES TO WHOM SUMMONS U/S 131 WERE ISSUED HAD APPEARED AND THEIR STATEMENT WERE RECORDED U/S.131 OF THE I.T. ACT ON OATH ALONG WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE CHECKED AND D. THE DIRECTORS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES CONFIRMED HAVING INVESTED IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF INVESTMENT LEDGER IN THEIR COMPANY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT, BANK STATEMENT AND BALANCE SHEET HAVE ALREADY UBMITTED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE SOURCE OF FUND, IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS WERE VERIFIED AND FOUND IN ORDER. THE SOURCE OF FUND ASSESSED U/S. 143(3)/263/143(3) AS ABOVE. ISSUE COPY OF THE ORDER, COMPUTATION SHEET 4, KOLKATA, ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 28/01/2019 TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 26/12/2016, SHOULD NOT BE REVISED. THE SOLE REASON ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT TOTAL INCOME AS DETERMINE AS PER ORDER IS LESS THAN THE TOTAL INCOME AS ASSESSED AS PER ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 15.03.2015. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS EXPLANATION. THE LD. PR. CIT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SHOWCAUSE NOTICE, REJECTED THE SAME AND PASSED AN ORDER U/S 263 OF T HE ACT ON 27/03/2019 REVISING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT 26/12/2016. PARA 8 OF THIS ORDER READ AS FOLLOWS: 8. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION. THIS IS A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THE PART OF THE AO. NOT COLLECTING THE FULL FACTS AND DECISION BASED ON THE TOTALITY OF FACTS MAKES THIS ORDER ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE POSITION OF LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE INSTANT CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPLANATION 2(E) BELOW SECTION 263 (I) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY , THE ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O., WHO IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES WHICH IT MAY CHOOSE TO RELY UPON FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS OWN CLAIM. THE AO IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO ADJUDICATE THE SAID ISSUE DE ACCORDANCE WITH RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED SEPARATELY IN THIS ORDER. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OR THE CASE AS STATED AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENTS CITED ABOVE, IT IS DEEMED FIT AND APPROPRIATE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE A.O. FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT WITH A DIRECTION TO HIM TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AS DESCRIBED IN PARA PER TH E DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN PARA 5.6 AND 7 SUPRA. ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THE AO TO RE ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT A.Y. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPLETED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 26/12/2016, AFTER COMPLYING WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT 07/09/2016. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED HAVE TRAVELLED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 07/09/2016 HE SUBMITTED THAT, THE LD. PR. CIT, IN HIS FIRST REVISIONARY ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAS RECORDED THAT, ALL THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED EXAMINED ALL THESE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES THAT WERE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED AND THEN PASSED THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 26/12/2016 AND THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR WHATSOEVER IN THAT ORDER, WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EXERCISE OF REVISIONARY POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT HE SUBMITTED THAT, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 26/12/2016 WAS A SPEAKING ORDER WHEREIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS 3 ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT TOTAL INCOME AS DETERMINE AS PER ORDER IS LESS THAN THE TOTAL INCOME AS ASSESSED AS PER ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 15.03.2015. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS EXPLANATION. THE LD. PR. CIT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SHOWCAUSE NOTICE, REJECTED THE SAME AND PASSED AN ORDER U/S HE ACT ON 27/03/2019 REVISING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT 26/12/2016. PARA 8 OF THIS ORDER READ AS FOLLOWS: - 8. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION. THIS IS A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THE PART OF THE AO. NOT COLLECTING THE FULL FACTS AND NOT TAKING ENQUIRY TO LOGICAL END WHICH COULD ENABLE THE AO DECISION BASED ON THE TOTALITY OF FACTS MAKES THIS ORDER ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE POSITION OF LAW AND ES OF THE INSTANT CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPLANATION 2(E) BELOW SECTION 263 (I) OF THE , THE ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O., WHO IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES WHICH IT MAY CHOOSE TO RELY UPON FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS OWN CLAIM. THE AO IS FURTHER ADJUDICATE THE SAID ISSUE DE - NOVO AND PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED SEPARATELY IN THIS ORDER. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OR THE CASE AS STATED RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENTS CITED ABOVE, IT IS DEEMED FIT AND APPROPRIATE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE A.O. FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT WITH A DIRECTION TO HIM TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AS DESCRIBED IN PARA E DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN PARA 5.6 AND 7 SUPRA. ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THE AO TO RE ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT A.Y. 2012- 13, AS DIRECTED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPLETED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 26/12/2016, AFTER COMPLYING WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT - 4, KOLKATA, IN HIS ORDER THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE TRAVELLED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 07/09/2016 , WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S HE SUBMITTED THAT, THE LD. PR. CIT, IN HIS FIRST REVISIONARY ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ALL THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES THAT WERE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED AND PASSED THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 26/12/2016 AND THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE EXERCISE OF REVISIONARY POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT ONCE AGAIN BY THE LD. PR. CIT HE SUBMITTED THAT, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 26/12/2016 WAS A SPEAKING ORDER WHEREIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CIT. ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT TOTAL INCOME AS DETERMINE AS PER ORDER IS LESS THAN THE TOTAL INCOME AS ASSESSED AS PER ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED ERRONEOUS, IN SO FAR AS IT IS THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS EXPLANATION. THE LD. PR. CIT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SHOWCAUSE NOTICE, REJECTED THE SAME AND PASSED AN ORDER U/S HE ACT ON 27/03/2019 REVISING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT , DT. 8. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION. THIS IS A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THE PART OF THE AO. NOT NOT TAKING ENQUIRY TO LOGICAL END WHICH COULD ENABLE THE AO DECISION BASED ON THE TOTALITY OF FACTS MAKES THIS ORDER ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE POSITION OF LAW AND ES OF THE INSTANT CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPLANATION 2(E) BELOW SECTION 263 (I) OF THE , THE ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O., WHO IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES WHICH IT MAY CHOOSE TO RELY UPON FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS OWN CLAIM. THE AO IS FURTHER NOVO AND PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED SEPARATELY IN THIS ORDER. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OR THE CASE AS STATED ABOVE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENTS CITED ABOVE, IT IS DEEMED FIT AND APPROPRIATE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE A.O. FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT WITH A DIRECTION TO HIM TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AS DESCRIBED IN PARA -3 SUPRA AS E DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN PARA 5.6 AND 7 SUPRA. ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THE AO TO RE - 13, AS DIRECTED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPLETED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 26/12/2016, AFTER 4, KOLKATA, IN HIS ORDER DT. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE TRAVELLED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S , WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT, THE LD. PR. CIT, IN HIS FIRST REVISIONARY ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ALL THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES THAT WERE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED AND ONLY PASSED THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 26/12/2016 AND THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR EREST OF THE REVENUE , WARRANTING BY THE LD. PR. CIT -4, KOLKATA. HE SUBMITTED THAT, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 26/12/2016 WAS A FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CIT. I N THE IMPUGNED REVISIONARY ORDER, LD. PCIT HAS POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. WHICH ACCORDING TO 'ERRONEOUS' AND 'PREJUDICIAL' TO THE ON THE SECOND IMPUGNED REVISIONARY ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING POINT TO POINT REBUTTAL: (I) A.O. HAD FAILED TO EXAMINE THE NET WORTH OF SHAREHOLDERS IN ORDER TO SEE TH JUSTIFIABILITY OF SUCH HUGE INVESTMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT , THE A.O. HAS ALREADY GIVEN A FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT HE HAD VERIFIED THE SOURCE OF FUND, IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS AND FOUND THE SAME IN ORDER. FURTHER, FROM T THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE APPEL MORE THAN 3.5% OF THEIR NET WORTH (II) QUANTUM OF SHARE PREMIUM RAISED BY THE APPELLANT HAS N ANALYZING THE FINANCIALS OF THE INVESTORS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS NOT AN ISSUE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE A.O. AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE FIRST REVISIONARY ORDER DATED 7.9.2016 NOT BOUND TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF SHARE PREMIUM. IN ANY CASE, AS STATED ABOVE, THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES HAD ROBUST FINANCIALS AND IN THE COURSE OF A.O. HAD QUESTIONED THE SHAREHOLDERS AS TO WHY THEY INVESTED IN THE APP AND THE DUE AND COGENT REPLY WAS AL (III) THE REPLIES WERE PLACED ON RECORD AND NO INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES WERE CARRIED OUT REGARDING THE FACT AS TO WHETHER THE SUBSCRIBING SHAREHOLDERS WERE AVAILABLE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAD VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 16.12.2016 HAS GIVEN DIRECTION TO HIS OFFICE TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 131 TO ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS. THEREAFTER, THE SHAREHOLDERS APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THEIR DEPOSITION. THE FACTUM OF RECORDING OF DEPOSITION IS DULY RECORDED IN THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES AND IT IS ALSO RECORDED THAT THE DIRECTORS APPEARED WITH THEIR ID PROOF. THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT T 4 N THE IMPUGNED REVISIONARY ORDER, LD. PCIT HAS POINTED OUT CERTAIN IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. WHICH ACCORDING TO THE LD. PR. CIT MADE THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 'ERRONEOUS' AND 'PREJUDICIAL' TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ON THE SECOND IMPUGNED REVISIONARY ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING POINT TO POINT REBUTTAL: - (I) A.O. HAD FAILED TO EXAMINE THE NET WORTH OF SHAREHOLDERS IN ORDER TO SEE TH JUSTIFIABILITY OF SUCH HUGE INVESTMENT. , THE A.O. HAS ALREADY GIVEN A FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT HE HAD VERIFIED THE SOURCE OF FUND, IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS AND FOUND THE SAME IN ORDER. FURTHER, FROM T HE CHART MARKED AS ANNEXURE: 'B', IT IS APPARENT THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE APPEL LANT COMPANY BY THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANY MORE THAN 3.5% OF THEIR NET WORTH OF EACH SHAREHOLDER COMPANY. (II) QUANTUM OF SHARE PREMIUM RAISED BY THE APPELLANT HAS N OT BEEN EXAMINED BY ANALYZING THE FINANCIALS OF THE INVESTORS. SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS NOT AN ISSUE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE A.O. AS PER FIRST REVISIONARY ORDER DATED 7.9.2016 AND HENCE NOT BOUND TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF SHARE PREMIUM. IN ANY CASE, AS STATED ABOVE, THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES HAD ROBUST FINANCIALS AND IN THE COURSE OF THEIR THE SHAREHOLDERS AS TO WHY THEY INVESTED IN THE APP AND THE DUE AND COGENT REPLY WAS AL SO GIVEN BY ALL THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES (III) THE REPLIES WERE PLACED ON RECORD AND NO INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES WERE CARRIED OUT REGARDING THE FACT AS TO WHETHER THE SUBSCRIBING SHAREHOLDERS WERE AVAILABLE S SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAD VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 16.12.2016 HAS GIVEN DIRECTION TO HIS OFFICE TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 131 TO ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS. THEREAFTER, THE SHAREHOLDERS APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 19.12 .2016 AND 20.12.2016 AND RECORDED THEIR DEPOSITION. THE FACTUM OF RECORDING OF DEPOSITION IS DULY RECORDED IN THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES AND IT IS ALSO RECORDED THAT THE DIRECTORS APPEARED WITH THEIR ID PROOF. THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT T HE A.O. HAD TAKEN A PROACTIVE STEP ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. CERTAIN ALLEGED INFIRMITIES MADE THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ON THE SECOND IMPUGNED REVISIONARY ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR (I) A.O. HAD FAILED TO EXAMINE THE NET WORTH OF SHAREHOLDERS IN ORDER TO SEE TH E , THE A.O. HAS ALREADY GIVEN A FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT HE HAD VERIFIED THE SOURCE OF FUND, IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS AND HE CHART MARKED AS ANNEXURE: 'B', IT IS APPARENT LANT COMPANY BY THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANY IS NOT OT BEEN EXAMINED BY SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS NOT AN ISSUE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE A.O. AS PER AND HENCE , THE A.O. WAS NOT BOUND TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF SHARE PREMIUM. IN ANY CASE, AS STATED ABOVE, THE THEIR DEPOSITION, THE THE SHAREHOLDERS AS TO WHY THEY INVESTED IN THE APP ELLANT COMPANY SO GIVEN BY ALL THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES . (III) THE REPLIES WERE PLACED ON RECORD AND NO INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES WERE CARRIED OUT REGARDING THE FACT AS TO WHETHER THE SUBSCRIBING SHAREHOLDERS WERE AVAILABLE S SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAD VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 16.12.2016 HAS GIVEN DIRECTION TO HIS OFFICE TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 131 TO ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS. THEREAFTER, THE .2016 AND 20.12.2016 AND RECORDED THEIR DEPOSITION. THE FACTUM OF RECORDING OF DEPOSITION IS DULY RECORDED IN THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES AND IT IS ALSO RECORDED THAT THE DIRECTORS HE A.O. HAD TAKEN A PROACTIVE STEP IN MAKING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES WHICH NOT ONLY PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF THE COMPANIES BUT ALSO EXISTENCE OF ALL OTHER NECESSARY INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68. (IV) A.O. FAILED TO EXAMINE THE DIRECTORS AS REGARD THE GENUINENES INTEREST. IT IS SUBMITTED IN THIS REGARD THAT THIS IS NEITHER A RELEVANT ISSUE IN THE CONTEXT OF ADDITION U/S 68 NOR DID THE FIRST PCIT HAD GIVEN ANY SUCH DIRECTION (V) THE A.O. FAILED TO EXAMINE THE BANK STATEMEN ASCERTAIN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE FIRST PCIT WAS CONFINED TO EXAMINATION OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE INVESTORS AND TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE OB SERVATION OF THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE BANK STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE A.O. FURTHER, REFERENCE TO THE PAGE NO. OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AS AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD OF THE A.O., IS GIVEN IN THE CHART MARKED AS ANNE XURE: 'B'. IT IS WORTH NOTING HERE THAT THE FIRST PCIT HAS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION AND NOT SOURCE OF SOURCE. THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN TRACED TO THE SHAREHOLDERS WHO IDENTITY, GENUINITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS HAS ADMITTEDLY BEEN EXAMINE BY THE A.O. (VI) THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. SUFFERS FROM LACK OF ADEQUATE ENQUIRY MAKING IT ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE A.O. WAS OBLIGED TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. PCIT, WHICH HE FOLLOWED STRICTLY AND COMPLETELY 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 27/03/2019, IS BAD LAW FOR THE FOLLO A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EXAMINED THE NET WORTH OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND HAD GIVEN A FINDING FUNDS, IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT. HE FILED A PAPER BOOK WHEREIN AT ANN EACH OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPAN OFFICER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SHARE PREMIUM 5 IN MAKING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES WHICH NOT ONLY PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF THE COMPANIES BUT ALSO EXISTENCE OF ALL OTHER NECESSARY INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68. (IV) A.O. FAILED TO EXAMINE THE DIRECTORS AS REGARD THE GENUINENES IT IS SUBMITTED IN THIS REGARD THAT THIS IS NEITHER A RELEVANT ISSUE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FIRST PCIT HAD GIVEN ANY SUCH DIRECTION IN HIS FIRST 263 ORDER (V) THE A.O. FAILED TO EXAMINE THE BANK STATEMEN T TO TRACE OUT THE MONEY TRAIL TO ASCERTAIN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS. SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE FIRST PCIT WAS CONFINED TO EXAMINATION OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE INVESTORS AND TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION. IT IS APPARENT SERVATION OF THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE BANK STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE A.O. FURTHER, REFERENCE TO THE PAGE NO. OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AS AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD OF THE A.O., IS GIVEN IN THE CHART MARKED AS XURE: 'B'. IT IS WORTH NOTING HERE THAT THE FIRST PCIT HAS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION AND NOT SOURCE OF SOURCE. THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN TRACED TO THE SHAREHOLDERS WHO IDENTITY, GENUINITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS HAS ADMITTEDLY BEEN EXAMINE BY THE A.O. (VI) THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. SUFFERS FROM LACK OF ADEQUATE ENQUIRY MAKING IT ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HAT THE A.O. WAS OBLIGED TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. PCIT, WHICH STRICTLY AND COMPLETELY . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUMMED-UP HIS ARGUMENTS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 27/03/2019, IS BAD LAW FOR THE FOLLO WING REASONS: THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EXAMINED THE NET WORTH OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND HAD GIVEN A FINDING OF FACTS, IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOUT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS, IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT. HE FILED A PAPER BOOK WHEREIN AT ANN EXURE- B, THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED BY EACH OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPAN IES ARE ENCLOSED. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SHARE PREMIUM ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. IN MAKING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES WHICH NOT ONLY PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF THE COMPANIES (IV) A.O. FAILED TO EXAMINE THE DIRECTORS AS REGARD THE GENUINENES S OF CONTROLLING IT IS SUBMITTED IN THIS REGARD THAT THIS IS NEITHER A RELEVANT ISSUE IN THE CONTEXT OF IN HIS FIRST 263 ORDER . T TO TRACE OUT THE MONEY TRAIL TO SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE FIRST PCIT WAS CONFINED TO EXAMINATION OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE INVESTORS AND TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION. IT IS APPARENT SERVATION OF THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE BANK STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE A.O. FURTHER, REFERENCE TO THE PAGE NO. OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AS AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD OF THE A.O., IS GIVEN IN THE CHART MARKED AS XURE: 'B'. IT IS WORTH NOTING HERE THAT THE FIRST PCIT HAS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION AND NOT SOURCE OF SOURCE. THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN TRACED TO THE SHAREHOLDERS WHO SE IDENTITY, GENUINITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS HAS ADMITTEDLY BEEN EXAMINE BY THE A.O. (VI) THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. SUFFERS FROM LACK OF ADEQUATE ENQUIRY MAKING IT ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HAT THE A.O. WAS OBLIGED TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. PCIT, WHICH THAT, LD. PR. CITS WING REASONS: - THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EXAMINED THE NET WORTH OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOUT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS, IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT. HE FILED A PAPER B, THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED BY ARE ENCLOSED. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SHARE PREMIUM CHARGED AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT, IN THE F ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 07/09/2016. B) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SCRUPULOUSLY FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CIT, GIVEN IN THE FIRST REVISIONARY ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 07/09/2016. EVEN OTHERWISE, EACH OF THE ROBUST FINANCIALS AS CAN BE SEEN FROM ANNEXURE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE SHAREHOLDERS FOR THE REASONS FOR INVESTING IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND AFTER GETTING COGENT R C) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS HAD APPEARED BEFORE HIM ON 19/12/2016 & 20/12/2016 DEPOSITION OF EACH OF THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES AND THE DEPOSITION ON RECORD. D) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN PRO INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES, ONLY AFTER WHICH HE WAS SATISFIED THAT ALL THE NECESSARY INGR TRANSACTIONS. E) THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE DIRECTORS ON THE ISSUE OF GENUINENESS OF CONTROLLING INTEREST AS THE SAME WAS NOT RELEVANT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE INVESTORS AND ALSO TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICANT WHICH INVESTIGATION WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT THERE WAS NOT DIRECTION TO TRACE OUT THE MONEY TRAILS SO AS TO ASCERTAIN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS. 4.1. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BOUND BY THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT GIVEN IN THE FIRST ROUND OF REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS FOLLOWED EACH OF THESE DIRECTIONS AND AFTER CONDUCTING DETAILED ENQUIRIES AND OBTAINING NECESSARY DOCUMENTS HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THERE WAS LACK OF ENQUIRY OR A CASE OF INADEQUATE ENQUIRY AND HENC E THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS ERRED IN INVOKING HIS POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE 6 CHARGED AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT, IN THE F ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 07/09/2016. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SCRUPULOUSLY FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CIT, GIVEN IN THE FIRST REVISIONARY ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 07/09/2016. EVEN OTHERWISE, EACH OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES HAD ROBUST FINANCIALS AS CAN BE SEEN FROM ANNEXURE - B OF THE SUBMISSIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE SHAREHOLDERS FOR THE REASONS FOR INVESTING IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND AFTER GETTING COGENT R EPLIES, ACCEPTED THE SAME. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS HAD APPEARED BEFORE HIM ON 19/12/2016 & 20/12/2016 . THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE DEPOSITION OF EACH OF THESE SHAREHOLDERS AND THAT THIS FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES AND THE DEPOSITION ON RECORD. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN PRO - ACTIVE STEPS IN MAKING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES, ONLY AFTER WHICH HE WAS SATISFIED THAT ALL THE NECESSARY INGR EDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, ARE EXISTING IN THESE THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE DIRECTORS ON THE ISSUE OF GENUINENESS OF CONTROLLING INTEREST AS THE SAME WAS NOT RELEVANT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. PR. CIT IN THE FIRST ROUND HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE INVESTORS AND ALSO TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICANT WHICH INVESTIGATION WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT THERE WAS NOT TRACE OUT THE MONEY TRAILS SO AS TO ASCERTAIN THE SOURCE OF HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BOUND BY THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT GIVEN IN THE FIRST ROUND OF REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THAT THE ER HAS FOLLOWED EACH OF THESE DIRECTIONS AND AFTER CONDUCTING DETAILED ENQUIRIES AND OBTAINING NECESSARY DOCUMENTS HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THERE WAS LACK OF ENQUIRY OR A CASE OF INADEQUATE E THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS ERRED IN INVOKING HIS POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE - LAW FOR EACH OF THE PROPOSITIONS CITED BY HIM. HE ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. CHARGED AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT, IN THE F IRST REVISIONARY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SCRUPULOUSLY FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CIT, GIVEN IN THE FIRST REVISIONARY ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES HAD B OF THE SUBMISSIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE SHAREHOLDERS FOR THE REASONS FOR INVESTING IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS HAD APPEARED BEFORE HIM ON . THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE THESE SHAREHOLDERS AND THAT THIS FACT IS EVIDENT FROM ACTIVE STEPS IN MAKING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES, ONLY AFTER WHICH HE WAS SATISFIED THAT ALL THE EDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, ARE EXISTING IN THESE THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE DIRECTORS ON THE ISSUE OF GENUINENESS OF CONTROLLING INTEREST AS THE SAME LD. PR. CIT IN THE FIRST ROUND HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE INVESTORS AND ALSO TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICANT WHICH INVESTIGATION WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT THERE WAS NOT TRACE OUT THE MONEY TRAILS SO AS TO ASCERTAIN THE SOURCE OF HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BOUND BY THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT GIVEN IN THE FIRST ROUND OF REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THAT THE ER HAS FOLLOWED EACH OF THESE DIRECTIONS AND AFTER CONDUCTING DETAILED ENQUIRIES AND OBTAINING NECESSARY DOCUMENTS HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THERE WAS LACK OF ENQUIRY OR A CASE OF INADEQUATE E THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS ERRED IN INVOKING HIS POWERS U/S 263 OF THE LAW FOR EACH OF THE PROPOSITIONS CITED BY HIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN HIS FAVOUR BY THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA B BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX IN 12.08.2020 AND THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA A BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE OMKAR INFRACON PRIVATE VS ITO,WARD YEAR 2012- 13, ORDER DT. 18/03/2020 THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WAS QUASHED AS BAD IN LAW DECISION IN THE CASE OF KANCHAN PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 2411/KOL/2017; ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012- 13, ORDER DT. 01/05/2019, THAT SHARE PREMIUM CANNOT BE TAXED, EVEN IF IT EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, PRIOR T AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO THE INCOME TAX ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 BE CONSIDERING EACH OF THESE DECISIONS AS AND WHEN NECESSARY. 5. THE LD. D/R, SHRI ANAND KEDIA THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMIT TED THAT THE LD. PR. CIT THE ACT ON 27/03/2019 HAS DEALT WITH EACH AND EVER HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH PARA THE ACT AND RELIED ON THE FINDING OF THE LD. PR. CIT THE BENCH TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (CENTRAL) 103 TAXMANN.COM 48 (SC) AND ARGUED THAT IN CASE OF PRIVATE PLACEMENT OF SHARES, THERE IS A HIGHER ONUS PLACED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER A LEGAL OBLIGATION, TO JUSTIFY THE RECEIPT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A NON ORDER AND THAT A PERUSAL OF THE SAME DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BE NCH, THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND, THE LD. D/R COULD NOT DISTINGUISH THE ORDERS OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, ON FACTS, IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (SUPRA) PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT TO BE UPHELD. 5.1. IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AS, IN THAT CASE, THE SHAREHOLDERS WERE NOT TRACEABLE AND WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF HAND 7 CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN HIS FAVOUR BY THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AMRITRASHI INFRA P RIVATE LTD. TAX IN ITA NO. 838/KOL/2019 ; ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 AND THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA A BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE INFRACON PRIVATE VS ITO,WARD -12(2), KOLKATA IN ITA NO. 896/KOL/2019; ASSESSMENT 13, ORDER DT. 18/03/2020 , WHEREIN UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WAS QUASHED AS BAD IN LAW . HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE KANCHAN PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 2411/KOL/2017; 13, ORDER DT. 01/05/2019, AND OTHER DECISIONS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT SHARE PREMIUM CANNOT BE TAXED, EVEN IF IT EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, PRIOR T AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO THE INCOME TAX ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 BE CONSIDERING EACH OF THESE DECISIONS AS AND WHEN NECESSARY. ANAND KEDIA , ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTROVERTED THE ARGUMENTS OF TED THAT THE LD. PR. CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF HAS DEALT WITH EACH AND EVER Y ARGUMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH PARA 5.2. TO PARA 8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER FINDING OF THE LD. PR. CIT . HE SPECIFICALLY DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TAX (CENTRAL) -1 V. NRA IRON & STEEL (P.) LTD. REPORTED IN AND ARGUED THAT IN CASE OF PRIVATE PLACEMENT OF SHARES, THERE IS A HIGHER ONUS PLACED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER A LEGAL OBLIGATION, TO JUSTIFY THE RECEIPT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A NON ORDER AND THAT A PERUSAL OF THE SAME DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY NCH, THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND, THE LD. D/R ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED THAT COULD NOT DISTINGUISH THE ORDERS OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, ON FACTS, AS IN THE CASE OF AMRITRASHI INFRA P RIVATE LTD. VS. TAX (SUPRA) AND M/S OMKAR INFRACON PRIVATE VS ITO PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT TO BE UPHELD. IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NRA IRON & STEEL (P.) LTD. (SUPRA), AS, IN THAT CASE, THE SHAREHOLDERS WERE NOT TRACEABLE AND WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF HAND ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN HIS FAVOUR BY THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA RIVATE LTD. VS. PRINCIPAL ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 -13 ORDER DT. AND THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA A BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE M/S IN ITA NO. 896/KOL/2019; ASSESSMENT , WHEREIN UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE ORDER OF HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE KANCHAN PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 2411/KOL/2017; AND OTHER DECISIONS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT SHARE PREMIUM CANNOT BE TAXED, EVEN IF IT EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, PRIOR T O THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO THE INCOME TAX ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 -14. WE WOULD , ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTROVERTED THE ARGUMENTS OF IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF Y ARGUMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE . PASSED U/S 263 OF . HE SPECIFICALLY DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL REPORTED IN [2019] AND ARGUED THAT IN CASE OF PRIVATE PLACEMENT OF SHARES, THERE IS A HIGHER ONUS PLACED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER A LEGAL OBLIGATION, TO JUSTIFY THE RECEIPT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A NON -SPEAKING ORDER AND THAT A PERUSAL OF THE SAME DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED THAT COULD NOT DISTINGUISH THE ORDERS OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, ON FACTS, AS THESE ARE RIVATE LTD. VS. PRINCIPAL OMKAR INFRACON PRIVATE VS ITO (SUPRA) . HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT TO BE UPHELD. IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE (SUPRA), IS NOT APPLICABLE AS, IN THAT CASE, THE SHAREHOLDERS WERE NOT TRACEABLE AND WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF HAND EACH OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES REPRESENTATIVES APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED STATEMENTS ON OATH FROM THEM AND THAT THEY FILED ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS INCLUDING ASSESSMENT ORDERS PA SSED IN THEIR CASES U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR CASES, COPIES OF THE FINAL ACCOUNTS, COPIES OF THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THEM, COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS AND ALSO EVIDENCE OF SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS ETC. T HEIR IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND ALSO GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY THE DEPARTMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, AND WHEN NOTHING ADVERSE WAS FOUND, NO ADDITION U /S 68 OF THE ACT, CAN BE MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WHICH IS A RECIPIENT OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE WHICH WE WILL BE REFERRING TO, AS AND WHEN REQUIRED. 5.1.1. HE ONCE AGAIN RELIE D ON THE ORDER OF THE CO CASE OF AMRITRASHI INFRA P RIVATE LTD. VS. SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF AMRITRASHI INFRA P RIVATE LTD. (SUPRA) TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AMRITRASHI INFRA P SPECIFICALLY WHEN NO CONTRARY DECISION IS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEAR D 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: 7. WE FIND THAT THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, HAS UNDE IDENTICAL FACTS, IN THE CASE OF HAD PASSED A SECOND ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, HELD AS FOLLOWS: 46. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORE HAND AND FIND OUT WHETHER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF FIRST LD. PR. CIT, THE SECOND AO HAS DISCHARGED HIS ROLE AS AN INVESTIGATOR IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER THE AO FAILED TO EN WHETHER HIS RE- ASSESSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW OR IT CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW IN LAW. WE ON A CONJOINT READING OF THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE FIRST PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 AND THE REASSESS ASSESSMENT OF THE AO DATED 07.12.2016, THE FOLLOWING FACTS CAN BE DISCERNED: (A)THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT HAS RECORDED A FINDING AFTER PERUSAL OF THE FIRST ASSESSMENT RECORDS/FOLDER THAT DURING THE FIRST ROUND OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDING, THE 8 EACH OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES REPRESENTATIVES APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED STATEMENTS ON OATH FROM THEM AND THAT THEY FILED ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS INCLUDING ASSESSMENT SSED IN THEIR CASES U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR CASES, COPIES OF THE FINAL ACCOUNTS, COPIES OF THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THEM, COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS AND ALSO EVIDENCE OF SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS ETC. HEIR IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND ALSO GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY THE DEPARTMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, AND WHEN NOTHING ADVERSE WAS FOUND, NO ADDITION /S 68 OF THE ACT, CAN BE MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WHICH IS A RECIPIENT OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE WHICH WE WILL BE REFERRING TO, AS AND WHEN REQUIRED. D ON THE ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE RIVATE LTD. VS. PRINC IPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF RIVATE LTD. (SUPRA) AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DECISION OF THE AMRITRASHI INFRA P RIVATE LTD. (SUPRA) , HAS TO BE FOLLOWED, SPECIFICALLY WHEN NO CONTRARY DECISION IS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL. D 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: - WE FIND THAT THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, HAS UNDE R IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND IDENTICAL FACTS, IN THE CASE OF AMRITRASHI INFRA PRIVATE LTD. (SUPRA) WHERE THE LD. PR. CIT HAD PASSED A SECOND ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, HELD AS FOLLOWS: - IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORE -CITED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, LET US EXAMINE THE CASE IN HAND AND FIND OUT WHETHER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF FIRST LD. PR. CIT, THE SECOND AO HAS DISCHARGED HIS ROLE AS AN INVESTIGATOR IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER THE AO FAILED TO EN QUIRE ON THIS ISSUE AND ASSESSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW OR IT CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW IN LAW. WE ON A CONJOINT READING OF THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE FIRST PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 AND THE REASSESS ASSESSMENT OF THE AO DATED 07.12.2016, THE FOLLOWING FACTS CAN BE DISCERNED: (A)THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT HAS RECORDED A FINDING AFTER PERUSAL OF THE FIRST ASSESSMENT RECORDS/FOLDER THAT DURING THE FIRST ROUND OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDING, THE ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. EACH OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES REPRESENTATIVES APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED STATEMENTS ON OATH FROM THEM AND THAT THEY FILED ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS INCLUDING ASSESSMENT SSED IN THEIR CASES U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR CASES, COPIES OF THE FINAL ACCOUNTS, COPIES OF THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THEM, COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS AND ALSO EVIDENCE OF SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS ETC. IN SUPPORT OF HEIR IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND ALSO GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY THE DEPARTMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, AND WHEN NOTHING ADVERSE WAS FOUND, NO ADDITION /S 68 OF THE ACT, CAN BE MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WHICH IS A RECIPIENT OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE -LAW, ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (SUPRA) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DECISION OF THE , HAS TO BE FOLLOWED, SPECIFICALLY WHEN NO CONTRARY DECISION IS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL. D RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES R IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND WHERE THE LD. PR. CIT EXAMINE THE CASE IN HAND AND FIND OUT WHETHER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF FIRST LD. PR. CIT, THE SECOND AO HAS DISCHARGED HIS ROLE AS AN INVESTIGATOR IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND QUIRE ON THIS ISSUE AND ASSESSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW OR IT CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW IN LAW. WE ON A CONJOINT READING OF THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE FIRST PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 AND THE REASSESS MENT /SECOND ASSESSMENT OF THE AO DATED 07.12.2016, THE FOLLOWING FACTS CAN BE DISCERNED: - (A)THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT HAS RECORDED A FINDING AFTER PERUSAL OF THE FIRST ASSESSMENT RECORDS/FOLDER THAT DURING THE FIRST ROUND OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDING, THE ASSESS EE COMPANY PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE FIRST AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT TO SATISFY THE AO IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINEOUS OF SHARE SUBSCRIBERS:- (I) AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS; (II) COPY OF FORM FILED WITH THE ROC; (III) COPY OF PAN CARD OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY; (IV) DETAILS AND COPY OF SHARE APPLICANTS; (V) BANK STATEMENT REFLECTING THE TRANSACTION; (VI) RECORDS RELATING TO INVESTORS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. 47. WE NOTE THAT THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT IN HIS FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER, FOUND THAT AO IN THE FIRST ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THOUGH HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS NOT EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE AO HAS CLEARLY MADE A FINDING THAT FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED IN A VERY CASUAL MANNER AND HURRIED MANNER FLOUTING ALL ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES. ITS ONUS BY FURNISHING/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO FOUND FAULT WITH THE AOS ORDER FOR NON SHAREHOLDERS. THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO S ORDER IN NOT DISCUSSING THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE ON WHICH ADVERSE INFERENCE WAS DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO FOR NOT BOTHERING TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE OR TO BRING ON RECORD ANYTHING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THUS ACCORDING TO HIM, THE AO WITH A PRE CONCLUSION THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT, THE FIRST ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 26 NATURAL JUSTICE AND, THEREFORE, HE FOUND IT FIT TO ORDER DENOVO ASSESSMENT AND GAVE SPECIFIC DIRE CTION IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE. 48. THEREAFTER, THE LD. PR. CIT WAS PLEASED TO DIRECT PASSED ON 26.03.2015 IS SET ASIDE DE NOVO WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE AO TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF BOOKS THE INVESTOR. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION, ENTITY OF INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO WAITING FOR TIME BAR LIMIT. WITH THE AFORESAID SPECIFIC DIRECTION, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT HAS SET ASIDE THE FIRST ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26 49. SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND AO WAS SP TO CARRY OUT THE FOLLOWINGS ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DE SECOND AO IS FREE TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AFRESH, HOWEVER, HE HAS TO DO THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC ACTIONS AS DIRECTED I SHARES IN ASSESSEE- COMPANY. THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF LD. PR CIT TO AO ARE AS UNDER: (I) TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE; II) TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAM THE INVESTORS; III) AO TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS; IV)THE AO TO EXAMINE THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS; 9 EE COMPANY PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE FIRST AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT TO SATISFY THE AO IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINEOUS OF AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS; COPY OF FORM FILED WITH THE ROC; OF PAN CARD OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY; DETAILS AND COPY OF SHARE APPLICANTS; BANK STATEMENT REFLECTING THE TRANSACTION; RECORDS RELATING TO INVESTORS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT IN HIS FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER, FOUND THAT AO IN THE FIRST ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THOUGH HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS NOT EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE AO . THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AT PARA (4) OF HIS FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER HAS CLEARLY MADE A FINDING THAT FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED IN A VERY CASUAL MANNER FLOUTING ALL ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FURNISHING/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO .FURTHER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT MAINLY FOUND FAULT WITH THE AOS ORDER FOR NON - ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO S ORDER IN NOT DISCUSSING THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE ON WHICH ADVERSE INFERENCE WAS DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO FOR NOT BOTHERING TO EXAMINE THE F THE ASSESSEE OR TO BRING ON RECORD ANYTHING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THUS ACCORDING TO HIM, THE AO WITH A PRE - DETERMINED MIND HAS SIMPLY JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT, THE FIRST ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 26 -03- 2015 WAS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND, THEREFORE, HE FOUND IT FIT TO ORDER DENOVO ASSESSMENT AND GAVE CTION IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE LD. PR. CIT WAS PLEASED TO DIRECT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 26.03.2015 IS SET ASIDE DE NOVO WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE AO TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE INVESTOR. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION, ENTITY OF INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS . (EMPHASIS GIVEN BY US). HE ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITING FOR TIME BAR LIMIT. WITH THE AFORESAID SPECIFIC DIRECTION, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT HAS SET ASIDE THE FIRST ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26 -03-2015. SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND AO WAS SP ECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT TO CARRY OUT THE FOLLOWINGS ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DE - NOVO ASSESSMENT WHICH MEANS THE SECOND AO IS FREE TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AFRESH, HOWEVER, HE HAS TO DO THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC ACTIONS AS DIRECTED I N RESPECT OF SHARE- APPLICANTS WHO APPLIED FOR COMPANY. THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF LD. PR CIT TO AO ARE AS UNDER: TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAM INATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF AO TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS; IV)THE AO TO EXAMINE THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS; ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. EE COMPANY PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE FIRST AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT TO SATISFY THE AO IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINEOUS OF RECORDS RELATING TO INVESTORS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY, GENUINENESS THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT IN HIS FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER, FOUND THAT AO IN THE FIRST ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THOUGH HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS NOT EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM, SHOULD HAVE . THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AT PARA (4) OF HIS FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER HAS CLEARLY MADE A FINDING THAT FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED IN A VERY CASUAL MANNER THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED .FURTHER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT MAINLY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO S ORDER IN NOT DISCUSSING THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE ON WHICH ADVERSE INFERENCE WAS DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO FOR NOT BOTHERING TO EXAMINE THE F THE ASSESSEE OR TO BRING ON RECORD ANYTHING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THUS DETERMINED MIND HAS SIMPLY JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT, THE FIRST ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT 2015 WAS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND, THEREFORE, HE FOUND IT FIT TO ORDER DENOVO ASSESSMENT AND GAVE CTION IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE. ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 26.03.2015 IS SET ASIDE DE NOVO WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE AO TO CARRY OUT OF ACCOUNT AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE INVESTOR. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION, ENTITY . (EMPHASIS GIVEN BY US). HE ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITING FOR TIME BAR LIMIT. WITH THE AFORESAID SPECIFIC DIRECTION, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT ECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT NOVO ASSESSMENT WHICH MEANS THE SECOND AO IS FREE TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AFRESH, HOWEVER, HE HAS TO DO THE APPLICANTS WHO APPLIED FOR COMPANY. THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF LD. PR CIT TO AO ARE AS UNDER: TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF INATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF IV)THE AO TO EXAMINE THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS; V) THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AT THE EARLIEST WITHOUT BARRING DATE. 50. IN THE SECOND ROUND BEFORE THE AO FOR DE NOVO RE PER THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT (SUPRA), CONDUCTED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. AS PER THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF LD. SUMMONED THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHRI NAVINTAHIN BEFORE HIM, WHO DULY APPEARED AND PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON 01.12.2016 AND FURNISHED THE RELEVANT DETAILS VIZ., (I) COPY OF ITR, (II) AUDITED ACCOUNT DETAILS OF THE SHARE- APPLICANTS, (V) DETAILS OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY, (VI) DETAILS OF INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL, (VII) FORM 2, (VIII) FORM 5, (IX) BANK STATEMENTS EVIDENCING PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING TRANSACTION, WHICH ORDER. [AND HERE WE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND THAT THE FIRST LD. PR. CITS FINDING OF FACT AFTER PERUSAL OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST ROUND BEFORE AO HAS PRODUCED PAN,ROC DETAILS, AUDI APPLICANTS, BANK STATEMENTS REFLECTING THE TRANSACTION, RECORDS RELATING TO INVESTORS TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS & GENUINENESS. AND THE FINDING OF FIRST LD. PR. CIT THAT ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARG AO.]SECONDLY, AFTER EXAMINING THESE DOCUMENTS, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE SECOND AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO ALL THE THIRTEEN (13) SHARE APPLICANTS AND PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE, ALL THE SHAREHOLDER DETAIL, (III) AUDITED ANNUAL REPORT FOR FY 2011 ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR AY 2012 AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE I ASSESSEES DIRECTOR; AND THE AO VERIFIED THE VERACITY OF THE SAME FROM ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND MOREOVER IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT IN THIS COMPUTER/DIGITAL ERA, THE AO ON A C EASILY VERIFIED THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE OF MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND THE ITR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FILED BY THEM, WILL ENABLE THE AO TO CROSS VERIFY AND COLLECT DETAILS FROM THE AND INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE REVENUES DEPARTMENTAL DATA BASE. WE NOTE THAT ALL THE SHARE SUBSCRIBING PARTIES FILED ALL THE DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR BY THE AO [PB ALSO EXAMINED BY THE AO ALONG WITH AUDITED ACCOU THEIR IDENTITY. SL. NO . NAME OF COMPANY 1. M/S. K. R. OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 2. M/S. KAKRANIA TRADING PVT. LTD. 3. M/S. AMBALATRAFIN PVT. LTD. 4. M/S. SUBHIKSHA PVT. LTD. 5. M/S. SHIVARSHI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 6. M/S. SHIVASHIV PVT. LTD. 7. M/S. FLOWTOP AGENCY PVT. LTD. 8. M/S. SUKHSAGAR RESIDENCY PVT. LTD. 9. M/S. KAMALDHAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 10 . M/S. LABHDHANIMPEX PVT. LTD. 11 . M/S. SUBHSREEIMPEX PVT. LTD. 12 . M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. 13 . M/S. SRISTI SALES PVT. LTD. 10 THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AT THE EARLIEST WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE TIME IN THE SECOND ROUND BEFORE THE AO FOR DE NOVO RE - ASSESSMENT, THE SECOND AO AS PER THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT (SUPRA), CONDUCTED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. AS PER THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF LD. FIRST PR. CIT, THE SECOND AO FIRSTLY SUMMONED THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHRI NAVINTAHIN BEFORE HIM, WHO DULY APPEARED AND PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON 01.12.2016 AND FURNISHED THE RELEVANT DETAILS VIZ., (I) COPY OF ITR, (II) AUDITED ACCOUNT S, (III) DETAILS OF DIRECTORS, (IV) THE APPLICANTS, (V) DETAILS OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY, (VI) DETAILS OF INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL, (VII) FORM 2, (VIII) FORM 5, (IX) BANK STATEMENTS EVIDENCING PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING TRANSACTION, WHICH FACT THE AO HAS ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDER. [AND HERE WE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND THAT THE FIRST LD. PR. CITS FINDING OF FACT AFTER PERUSAL OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST ROUND BEFORE AO HAS PRODUCED PAN,ROC DETAILS, AUDI TED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, DETAILS AND COPY OF SHARE APPLICANTS, BANK STATEMENTS REFLECTING THE TRANSACTION, RECORDS RELATING TO INVESTORS TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS & GENUINENESS. AND THE FINDING OF FIRST LD. PR. CIT THAT ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARG ED ITS ONUS BY FURNISHING/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO.]SECONDLY, AFTER EXAMINING THESE DOCUMENTS, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE SECOND AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO ALL THE THIRTEEN (13) SHARE APPLICANTS AND PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE, ALL THE SHAREHOLDER S HAVE FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE (I) PAN DETAILS, (II) CIN DETAIL, (III) AUDITED ANNUAL REPORT FOR FY 2011 - 12 (AY 2012 ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR AY 2012 - 13 WHICH THE AO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE VERIFIED THE SAME AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE I NVESTORS WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEES DIRECTOR; AND THE AO VERIFIED THE VERACITY OF THE SAME FROM ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND MOREOVER IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT IN THIS COMPUTER/DIGITAL ERA, THE AO ON A C LICK OF THE MOUSE, COULD HAVE EASILY VERIFIED THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE OF MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND THE ITR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FILED BY THEM, WILL ENABLE THE AO TO CROSS VERIFY AND COLLECT DETAILS FROM THE AO OF THE RESPECTIVE SHARE APPLICANTS AND INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE REVENUES DEPARTMENTAL DATA BASE. WE NOTE THAT ALL THE SHARE SUBSCRIBING PARTIES FILED ALL THE DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR BY THE AO [PB ALSO EXAMINED BY THE AO ALONG WITH AUDITED ACCOU NTS FROM WHICH THESE DETAILS SHOW CIN PAN M/S. K. R. OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. U51109WB1994PTC061965 AACCK0101B M/S. KAKRANIA TRADING PVT. U70101WB1994PTC062137 AABCK151611 M/S. AMBALATRAFIN PVT. LTD. U67120WB1995PTCO74397 AACCA1184G M/S. SUBHIKSHA PVT. LTD. U52190WB2011PTC157073 AAPCS2068E M/S. SHIVARSHI CONSTRUCTION U45400WB2011PTC170957 AAQCS7848M M/S. SHIVASHIV PVT. LTD. U74999WB2012PTC 173749 AARCS0094C M/S. FLOWTOP AGENCY PVT. LTD. U52190WB2012PTC 173352 AABCF9036D M/S. SUKHSAGAR RESIDENCY U45400WB2011PTC170958 AARCS1553N M/S. KAMALDHAN DEVELOPERS U45400WB2011PTC170944 AAECK6810D M/S. LABHDHANIMPEX PVT. LTD. U51909WB2011PTC171524 AACCL2111J PVT. LTD. U51909WB2011PTC171513 AARCS1845D M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS U51109WB2005PTC102343 AAECM224E M/S. SRISTI SALES PVT. LTD. U51109WB2005PTC102121 AAICS8900L ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. WAITING FOR THE TIME ASSESSMENT, THE SECOND AO AS PER THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT (SUPRA), CONDUCTED THE REASSESSMENT FIRST PR. CIT, THE SECOND AO FIRSTLY SUMMONED THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHRI NAVINTAHIN BEFORE HIM, WHO DULY APPEARED AND PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON 01.12.2016 AND FURNISHED THE RELEVANT S, (III) DETAILS OF DIRECTORS, (IV) THE APPLICANTS, (V) DETAILS OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY, (VI) DETAILS OF INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL, (VII) FORM 2, (VIII) FORM 5, (IX) BANK STATEMENTS EVIDENCING PAYMENT FACT THE AO HAS ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDER. [AND HERE WE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND THAT THE FIRST LD. PR. CITS FINDING OF FACT AFTER PERUSAL OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST ROUND BEFORE AO HAS TED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, DETAILS AND COPY OF SHARE APPLICANTS, BANK STATEMENTS REFLECTING THE TRANSACTION, RECORDS RELATING TO INVESTORS TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS & GENUINENESS. AND THE FINDING OF FIRST LD. PR. CIT ED ITS ONUS BY FURNISHING/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO.]SECONDLY, AFTER EXAMINING THESE DOCUMENTS, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE SECOND AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO ALL THE THIRTEEN (13) SHARE APPLICANTS AND PURSUANT TO S HAVE FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE (I) PAN DETAILS, (II) CIN 12 (AY 2012 -13), (IV) ITR 13 WHICH THE AO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE VERIFIED THE SAME NVESTORS WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEES DIRECTOR; AND THE AO VERIFIED THE VERACITY OF THE SAME FROM ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND MOREOVER IT IS COMMON LICK OF THE MOUSE, COULD HAVE EASILY VERIFIED THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE OF MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND THE ITR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FILED BY THEM, WILL ENABLE AO OF THE RESPECTIVE SHARE APPLICANTS AND INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE REVENUES DEPARTMENTAL DATA BASE. WE NOTE THAT ALL THE SHARE SUBSCRIBING PARTIES FILED ALL THE DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR BY THE AO [PB -2] AND WERE NTS FROM WHICH THESE DETAILS SHOW ITR FILED FOR AY 2012-13 AACCK0101B YES AABCK151611 YES AACCA1184G YES AAPCS2068E YES AAQCS7848M YES AARCS0094C YES AABCF9036D YES AARCS1553N YES AAECK6810D YES AACCL2111J YES AARCS1845D YES AAECM224E YES AAICS8900L YES 51. THUS, WE NOTE THAT THE AO AFTER VERIFICATION AS AFORESAID, HAS NOT DRAWN ANY ADVERSE OPINION OR DOUBTED THE POSSIBLE VIEW IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRESUMPTION IN SECTION 114 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872, WE PRESUME THAT THE QUASI JUDICIAL ACT OF THE SECOND AO HAVE BEEN REGULARLY PERFORMED. COMING TO THE CONTENTION OF LD. CIT, DR, THAT ORDER SHEET MAI HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, WE NOTE THAT THE AO IN HIS REASSESSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS CLEARLY ASSERTED THAT HE HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO A CIT AND WE NOTE FROM THE PERUSAL OF SOME LETTERS WRITTEN BY THE SHARE APPLICANTS CLEARLY REFERRING TO THE AOS SEC. 133(6) NOTICE (REFER INTER THE CLEAR ASSERTION OF THE S U/S. 133(6), HE RECEIVED THE DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED MERELY BECAUSE HE DID NOT MENTION THIS EVENT IN THE ORDER SHEET. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE OR THE SHARE APPLICANTS DOES NOT HAV THE FAILURE OF AO TO MENTION THIS ACTION CANNOT BE A REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE AOS ASSERTION THAT HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, WE HAVE TO EXAMINE THE RE- ASSESSMENT/SECOND AS BY HIM WHICH HAS NOT BEEN NEGATIVELY COMMENTED UPON BY THE SECOND LD PR CIT AND IT IS NOT THE FAULT FOR WHICH THE LD PR CIT EXERCISED HIS POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THUS, WE NOTE THAT SECOND AO ISSUED THAN 352 PAGES. MOREOVER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE FIRST AOS ORDER HAS RETURNED A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST ROUND ITSELF HAS FILED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE ID AND THAT ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FILING THE SAME. SO WE FIND THAT DURING THE SECOND ROUND, THE AO ISSUED NOTICES TO SHARE THEIR REPLIES AND SU PPORTING DOCUMENTS AND THEREAFTER HAVING VERIFIED THEIR VERACITY, THE SECOND AO WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT TO THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SHARE CAPITAL WHICH VIEW OF SECOND AO CANNOT BE FAULTED. AND WE ALSO NOTE THAT ALL THE SHARE- HOLDERS ARE REGULAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEES. THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED THEIR SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND CANNOT BE TERMED AS U NSUSTAINABLE IN LAW OR FACTS. 52. COMING TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE SHAREHOLDERS (PB LD. PR. CIT AND WE NOTE THAT THEIR SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND SHEET AS ON 31.03.2012 AS WELL AS THE SUM INVESTED BY THEM IN THE ASSESSEE IS DISCERNIBLE AS UNDER: NAME M/S. K. R. OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. M/S. KAKRANIA TRADING PVT. LTD. M/S. AMBALATRAFINPVT. LTD. M/S. SUBHIKSHA PVT. LTD. M/S. SHIVARSHI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. M/S. SHIVASHIV PVT. LTD. 11 51. THUS, WE NOTE THAT THE AO AFTER VERIFICATION AS AFORESAID, HAS NOT DRAWN ANY ADVERSE OPINION OR DOUBTED THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS WHICH VIEW OF AO IS A POSSIBLE VIEW IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO AND WE ALSO BY APPLYING THE PRESUMPTION IN SECTION 114 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872, WE PRESUME THAT THE QUASI JUDICIAL ACT OF THE SECOND AO HAVE BEEN REGULARLY PERFORMED. COMING TO THE CONTENTION OF LD. CIT, DR, THAT ORDER SHEET MAI NTAINED BY THE SECOND AO DOES NOT REVEAL THAT AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, WE NOTE THAT THE AO IN HIS REASSESSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS CLEARLY ASSERTED THAT HE HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO A LL THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AND WE NOTE FROM THE PERUSAL OF SOME LETTERS WRITTEN BY THE SHARE APPLICANTS CLEARLY REFERRING TO THE AOS SEC. 133(6) NOTICE (REFER INTER - ALIA PAGE 32 OF PB THE CLEAR ASSERTION OF THE S ECOND AO IN HIS ORDER THAT PURSUANT TO HIS ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 133(6), HE RECEIVED THE DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED MERELY BECAUSE HE DID NOT MENTION THIS EVENT IN THE ORDER SHEET. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE OR THE SHARE APPLICANTS DOES NOT HAV E ANY CONTROL OVER THE ORDER SHEET MAINTAINED BY THE AO AND THE FAILURE OF AO TO MENTION THIS ACTION CANNOT BE A REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE AOS ASSERTION THAT HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, WE HAVE TO EXAMINE ASSESSMENT/SECOND AS SESSMENT ORDER OF AO AND NOT THE ORDER- SHEET MAINTAINED BY HIM WHICH HAS NOT BEEN NEGATIVELY COMMENTED UPON BY THE SECOND LD PR CIT AND IT IS NOT THE FAULT FOR WHICH THE LD PR CIT EXERCISED HIS POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THUS, WE NOTE THAT SECOND AO ISSUED SEC. 133(6) NOTICE AND COLLECTED DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 352 PAGES. MOREOVER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE FIRST AOS ORDER HAS RETURNED A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST ROUND ITSELF HAS FILED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE ID ENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND THAT ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FILING THE SAME. SO WE FIND THAT DURING THE SECOND ROUND, THE AO ISSUED NOTICES TO SHARE - HOLDERS U/S. 133(6) AND AFTER PERUSING PPORTING DOCUMENTS AND THEREAFTER HAVING VERIFIED THEIR VERACITY, THE SECOND AO WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT TO THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SHARE CAPITAL WHICH VIEW OF SECOND AO CANNOT BE FAULTED. AND WE ALSO HOLDERS ARE REGULAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEES. THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED THEIR IDENTITY CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED AND THE AOS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND CANNOT BE NSUSTAINABLE IN LAW OR FACTS. CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE SHAREHOLDERS (PB - 2) WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO AND THE LD. PR. CIT AND WE NOTE THAT THEIR SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND NET WORTH AS PER BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2012 AS WELL AS THE SUM INVESTED BY THEM IN THE ASSESSEE IS SOURCE OF INVESTMENT CAPITAL & RESERVES PAGE 8 PAPER BOOK-2 RS.66,77,47,921 (PAGE 22 PB- 2 M/S. KAKRANIA TRADING PVT. PAGE 45 PAPER BOOK-2 RS.66,52,71,914 (PAGE 62 PB- 2 PAGE 88 PAPER BOOK-2 RS.624,711,003 (PAGE 101 PB 2 ) PAGE 115 PAPER BOOK- 2 RS.222,397,317 (PAGE 128 PB - 2 M/S. SHIVARSHI CONSTRUCTION PAGE 146PAPER BOOK - 2 RS.53,89,95,046 ( PAGE 153 PB - 2 PAGE 170PAPER BOOK - 2 RS.14,29,56,146 (PAGE 178 PB - 2 ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. 51. THUS, WE NOTE THAT THE AO AFTER VERIFICATION AS AFORESAID, HAS NOT DRAWN ANY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS WHICH VIEW OF AO IS A DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO AND WE ALSO BY APPLYING THE PRESUMPTION IN SECTION 114 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872, WE PRESUME THAT THE QUASI - JUDICIAL ACT OF THE SECOND AO HAVE BEEN REGULARLY PERFORMED. COMING TO THE CONTENTION NTAINED BY THE SECOND AO DOES NOT REVEAL THAT AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, WE NOTE THAT THE AO IN HIS REASSESSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS CLEARLY ASSERTED THAT HE HAD ISSUED LL THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AND WE NOTE FROM THE PERUSAL OF SOME LETTERS WRITTEN BY THE SHARE APPLICANTS ALIA PAGE 32 OF PB -I). SO, ECOND AO IN HIS ORDER THAT PURSUANT TO HIS ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 133(6), HE RECEIVED THE DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED MERELY BECAUSE HE DID NOT MENTION THIS EVENT IN THE ORDER SHEET. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE OR THE SHARE E ANY CONTROL OVER THE ORDER SHEET MAINTAINED BY THE AO AND THE FAILURE OF AO TO MENTION THIS ACTION CANNOT BE A REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE AOS ASSERTION THAT HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, WE HAVE TO EXAMINE SHEET MAINTAINED BY HIM WHICH HAS NOT BEEN NEGATIVELY COMMENTED UPON BY THE SECOND LD PR CIT AND IT IS NOT THE FAULT FOR WHICH THE LD PR CIT EXERCISED HIS POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THUS, WE SEC. 133(6) NOTICE AND COLLECTED DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 352 PAGES. MOREOVER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE FIRST AOS ORDER HAS RETURNED A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST ROUND ITSELF HAS FILED THE RELEVANT ENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND THAT ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FILING THE SAME. SO WE FIND THAT DURING HOLDERS U/S. 133(6) AND AFTER PERUSING PPORTING DOCUMENTS AND THEREAFTER HAVING VERIFIED THEIR VERACITY, THE SECOND AO WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT TO THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SHARE CAPITAL WHICH VIEW OF SECOND AO CANNOT BE FAULTED. AND WE ALSO HOLDERS ARE REGULAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEES. THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED AND THE AOS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND CANNOT BE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN 2) WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO AND THE NET WORTH AS PER BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2012 AS WELL AS THE SUM INVESTED BY THEM IN THE ASSESSEE IS SUM INVESTED IN ASSESSEES BUSINESS RS.66,77,47,921 2 ) RS.1,30,000/ - RS.66,52,71,914 2 ) RS.1,39,00,000/ - RS.624,711,003 PB - RS.4,40,00,000/ - RS.222,397,317 2 ) RS.45,00,000/ - RS.53,89,95,046 2 ) RS.4,66,00,000/ - RS.14,29,56,146 2 ) RS.6,55,00,000/ - M/S. FLOWTOP AGENCY PVT. LTD. M/S. SUKH SAGAR RESIDENCY PVT. LTD. M/S. KAMALDHAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. M/S. LABHDHAN IMPEX PVT. LTD. M/S. SUBHSREEI MPEX PVT. LTD. M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. M/S. SRISTI SALES PVT. LTD. 53. SO, FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CHART, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND THE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF SECOND AO THAT THEY (SHARE SUBSCRIBERS) HAVE ENOUGH NET WORTH TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES PURSU ANT TO THE AOS NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT HAVE FURNISHED THEIR RESPECTIVE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THE AFORESAID FACTS ARE CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE AND MOREOVER THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE SECOND AO THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THEY SUBSCR IBED TO SHARES OF ASSESSEE (THOUGH NOT REQUIRED AS PER LAW IN FORCE FOR AY 2012- 13), BANK STATEMENT, AUDITED BALANCE SHEET ETC EXCEPT M/S MAHARAJA AND M/S SRISTI SALES. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT ABOUT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE- HOLDERS. SO WE NOTE THAT THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS HAS BEEN CLEARLY BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE SECOND AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, THE BANK STATEMENTS OF ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS AS WELL AS THAT OF ASSESSEE WERE FILED B EFORE THE AO, WHICH REVEALED THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM HAVE BEEN SUBSCRIBED BY THEM THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL (NEFT OR CHEQUE) WHICH GOES ON TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION. BASED ON TH THE SAME AFTER VERIFICATION IS AN ACT OF ENQUIRY. AND WE NOTE THAT REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO CHALLENGE THE VERACITY OF THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE. MOREOVER, THE SECON MATERIAL TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF SECOND AO TO JUSTIFY HIS INTERVENTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT AND WHICH WOULD HAVE UPSET THE DECISION OF THE SECOND AOS FACTUAL VIEW ON THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS THE SECOND AOS VIEW BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO BY HIM IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND IN CONSONANCE WITH JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS (SUPRA) WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS/ EXAMINE EACH SHARE SUBSCRIBE (I) ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 12 TO 37 OF SHARE APPLICANT A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, AND WHICH HAS PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. AACCK0101B 31.03.2012 (IN TOTAL) RS.66,77,47,921/ COMPANY INCLUDING THE SHARE PREMIUM COMES TO RS.1,30,00 PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF RS.1,05,00,000/ AS ON 06.03.2012. THE BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT OF THE COMPANY IS FILED AND THE SHARE APPLICATION STATEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 12 M/S. FLOWTOP AGENCY PVT. LTD. PAGE 193PAPER BOOK - 2 RS.15,38,94,946 (PAGE 200 PB - 2 M/S. SUKH SAGAR RESIDENCY PAGE 212 PAPER BOOK - 2 RS.56,18,93,960 (PAGE 220 PB - 2 M/S. KAMALDHAN DEVELOPERS PAGE246 - 247PAPER BOOK-2 RS.56,18,94,080 (PAGE 254 PB - 2 M/S. LABHDHAN IMPEX PVT. PAGE 270PAPERBOOK - 2 RS.56,18,94,080 (PAGE 277 PB - 2 LTD. PAGE 290 OF PAPER BOOK RS.76,60,93,960 (PAGE 297 PB - 2 M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS - RS.1,54,58,399 (PAGE 313 PB - 2 - RS.1,12,25,632 (PAGE 336 PB - 2 SO, FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CHART, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND THE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF SECOND AO THAT THEY (SHARE SUBSCRIBERS) HAVE ENOUGH NET WORTH TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBING ANT TO THE AOS NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT HAVE FURNISHED THEIR RESPECTIVE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THE AFORESAID FACTS ARE CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE AND MOREOVER THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE SECOND AO THE SOURCE FROM IBED TO SHARES OF ASSESSEE (THOUGH NOT REQUIRED AS PER LAW IN FORCE FOR 13), BANK STATEMENT, AUDITED BALANCE SHEET ETC EXCEPT M/S MAHARAJA AND M/S SRISTI SALES. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT ABOUT THE CREDITWORTHINESS HOLDERS. SO WE NOTE THAT THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS HAS BEEN CLEARLY BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE SECOND AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, THE BANK STATEMENTS OF ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS AS WELL AS THAT OF EFORE THE AO, WHICH REVEALED THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM HAVE BEEN SUBSCRIBED BY THEM THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL (NEFT OR CHEQUE) WHICH GOES ON TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS IN RESPECT OF GENUINENESS TRANSACTION. BASED ON TH E DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS CALLED FOR BY THE AO WHO ACCEPTED THE SAME AFTER VERIFICATION IS AN ACT OF ENQUIRY. AND WE NOTE THAT REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO CHALLENGE THE VERACITY OF THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE. MOREOVER, THE SECON D LD. PR. CIT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF SECOND AO TO JUSTIFY HIS INTERVENTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT AND WHICH WOULD HAVE UPSET THE DECISION OF THE SECOND AOS FACTUAL VIEW ON THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINITY OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION. IN SUCH A SCENARIO, THE SECOND AOS VIEW BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO BY HIM IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND IN CONSONANCE WITH JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS (SUPRA) WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS/ EXAMINE EACH SHARE SUBSCRIBE RS TOTALING THIRTEEN (13) INFRA;- ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2, IT REVEALS THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE PLACED AT PAGE 12 TO 37 OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. K.R. OVERSEAS PVT. LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, AND WHICH HAS PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. AACCK0101B AND CIN U51109WB1994PTC061965 AND ITS NET 31.03.2012 (IN TOTAL) - SHARE CAPITAL & RESERVE IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.66,77,47,921/ - (PB PAGE 22) AND THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY INCLUDING THE SHARE PREMIUM COMES TO RS.1,30,00 PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF RS.1,05,00,000/ - TOOK PLACE AS ON 01.03.2012 BY NEFT AND RS.25,00,000/ AS ON 06.03.2012. THE BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT OF THE COMPANY IS FILED AND THE SHARE APPLICATION FORM, ITR ACKNOWLEDGMENT, BANK STATEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. RS.15,38,94,946 2 ) RS.4,49,00,000/ - RS.56,18,93,960 2 ) RS.2,31,00,000/ - RS.56,18,94,080 2 ) RS.12,54,00,000/ - RS.56,18,94,080 2 ) RS. 3,80,00,000/ - RS.76,60,93,960 2 ) RS. 2,76,00.000/ - RS.1,54,58,399 2 ) RS. 50,00,000/ - RS.1,12,25,632 2 ) RS.50,00,000/ - SO, FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CHART, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND THE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF SECOND AO THAT THEY (SHARE SUBSCRIBERS) HAVE ENOUGH NET WORTH TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBING ANT TO THE AOS NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT HAVE FURNISHED THEIR RESPECTIVE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THE AFORESAID FACTS ARE CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE AND MOREOVER THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE SECOND AO THE SOURCE FROM IBED TO SHARES OF ASSESSEE (THOUGH NOT REQUIRED AS PER LAW IN FORCE FOR 13), BANK STATEMENT, AUDITED BALANCE SHEET ETC EXCEPT M/S MAHARAJA AND M/S SRISTI SALES. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT ABOUT THE CREDITWORTHINESS HOLDERS. SO WE NOTE THAT THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS HAS BEEN CLEARLY BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE SECOND AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, THE BANK STATEMENTS OF ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS AS WELL AS THAT OF EFORE THE AO, WHICH REVEALED THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM HAVE BEEN SUBSCRIBED BY THEM THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL (NEFT OR CHEQUE) WHICH GOES GENUINENESS OF THE E DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS CALLED FOR BY THE AO WHO ACCEPTED THE SAME AFTER VERIFICATION IS AN ACT OF ENQUIRY. AND WE NOTE THAT REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO CHALLENGE THE VERACITY OF THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO D LD. PR. CIT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF SECOND AO TO JUSTIFY HIS INTERVENTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT AND WHICH WOULD HAVE UPSET THE DECISION OF THE SECOND AOS FACTUAL VIEW ON THE AND GENUINITY OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION. IN SUCH A SCENARIO, THE SECOND AOS VIEW BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO BY HIM IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND IN CONSONANCE WITH JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS (SUPRA) WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS/ 2, IT REVEALS THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE PLACED M/S. K.R. OVERSEAS PVT. LIMITED WHICH IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, AND WHICH HAS PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. AND ITS NET -WORTH AS ON SHARE CAPITAL & RESERVE IS TO THE TUNE OF (PB PAGE 22) AND THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY INCLUDING THE SHARE PREMIUM COMES TO RS.1,30,00 ,000/-. THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF TOOK PLACE AS ON 01.03.2012 BY NEFT AND RS.25,00,000/ - AS ON 06.03.2012. THE BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT OF THE COMPANY IS FORM, ITR ACKNOWLEDGMENT, BANK STATEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT P. B PAGE 3 ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APP LICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE A SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (II) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN U70101WB1994PTC062137 31.3.2012RS.66,52,71,914/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL FOUR TIMES ON 01.03.2012 RS.30,00,000 THROUGH NEFT; AND BY CHEQUE ON 02.03.2012A SUM OF RS. 59,00,000/ LAKH EACH. T AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, AND EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB- PAGE 39 TO 77. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARL RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF INCOME- TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THA T THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE ACT. (III) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK OF SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN U67120WB1995PTCO74397 31.3.2012 RS.62,47,11,003 ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO TH HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 01.03.2012 RS. 25 LAKHS; AND ON 03.03.2012 RS. 40 LAKHS THROUGH NEFT; AND BY CHEQUE ON RS. 3,75,00,000/ ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RE STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS H 13 HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT P. B PAGE 3 - 37AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE LICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME - TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE A PPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK -2 PAGES 38 TO 77 SHARE APPLICANT M/S. KAKRANIA TRADING PVT. LTD . IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AABCK151611 AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U70101WB1994PTC062137 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012RS.66,52,71,914/ - (PB- PAGE62) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,39,00,000/- APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL FOUR TIMES ON 01.03.2012 RS.30,00,000 THROUGH NEFT; AND BY CHEQUE ON 02.03.2012A SUM OF RS. 59,00,000/ - ; AND ON 7.3.2012 AND BY CHEQUE ON 12.3.2012 RS. 25 LAKH EACH. T HERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, AND EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN PAGE 39 TO 77. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARL Y FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED T THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE (III) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK -2 PAGES 78 TO 111 OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. AMBALA TRAFIN PVT. LTD . IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AACCA1184G AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U67120WB1995PTCO74397 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.62,47,11,003 - (PB-PAGE101 ) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO TH E TUNE OF RS. 4,40,00,000/- AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 01.03.2012 RS. 25 LAKHS; AND ON 03.03.2012 RS. 40 LAKHS THROUGH NEFT; AND BY CHEQUE ON RS. 3,75,00,000/ - ON 27.3.2012 . THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB - PAGE 79 TO 111 IN THE PB APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RE TURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME - TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS H AD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. 37AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING PPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE 38 TO 77 , THE DETAILS OF IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON PAGE62) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL FOUR TIMES ON 01.03.2012 RS.30,00,000 THROUGH NEFT; AND BY CHEQUE ON 02.03.2012A ; AND ON 7.3.2012 AND BY CHEQUE ON 12.3.2012 RS. 25 HERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, AND EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN Y FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS THE SHARE APPLICANT BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED T THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE 78 TO 111 , THE DETAILS IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON ) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 01.03.2012 RS. 25 LAKHS; AND ON 03.03.2012 RS. 40 LAKHS THROUGH NEFT; AND BY CHEQUE ON RS. ON 27.3.2012 . THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR IN VESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL PAGE 79 TO 111 IN THE PB -II. THIS SHARE TURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. AD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (IV) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK PAGES DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN U52190WB2011PTC157073 31.3.2012 RS.22,23,97,317/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 45,00,000/ HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 02.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.45 LAKHS THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXP STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF F HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (V) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAQCS7848M AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011PTC170957 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.53,89,95,046/ THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4, APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03.2012 RS.4,66,00,000/ INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEM FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOU AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLIC FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONU IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE OF THE ACT. (VI ) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK PAGES DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS0094C AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U74999WB2012PTC 173749 AND THE NET WORTH OF THI 14 INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (IV) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK PAGES -2, 112 TO 137 DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. SUBHIKSHA PVT. LTD . IT IS A COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAPCS2068E AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U52190WB2011PTC157073 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.22,23,97,317/ - (PB- PAGE 128.) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 45,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 02.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.45 LAKHS THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXP LANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB - PAGE 113 TO 137 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF F HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME - TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (V) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2, PAGES 138 TO 159 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. SHIVARSHI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAQCS7848M AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011PTC170957 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.53,89,95,046/ - (PB- PAGE 153) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4, 66,00,000/- APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03.2012 RS.4,66,00,000/ - THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEM ENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB - PAGE 139 TO 159 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOU AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLIC ANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME- TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONU IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) ) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK PAGES - 2, 160 TO 184 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. SHIVASHIV DEALCOM PVT. LTD LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS0094C AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U74999WB2012PTC 173749 AND THE NET WORTH OF THI S COMPANY AS ON ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER 112 TO 137 , THE IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON PAGE 128.) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 02.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.45 LAKHS THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR LANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL PAGE 113 TO 137 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF F UNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER 2, PAGES 138 TO 159 THE M/S. SHIVARSHI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD . IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAQCS7848M AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011PTC170957 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY PAGE 153) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK ENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS PAGE 139 TO 159 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOU RCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONU S TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) 2, 160 TO 184 THE M/S. SHIVASHIV DEALCOM PVT. LTD . IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS0094C AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS S COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.14,29,56,146/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,55,00,000/ HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03.2012 RS.6,55,00,000/ IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB APPLIC ANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASS ESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SEC (VII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AABCF9036D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U52190WB2012PTC 1 31.3.2012 RS.15,38,94,946/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,49,00,000/ HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 30.03.201 RS.4,49,00,000/ IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME- TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTH TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (VIII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PA DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS1553N AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011PTC170958AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.56,18 ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,31,00,000/ HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.3.2012 RS. 2,31,00,000/ ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETU THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED 15 31.3.2012 RS.14,29,56,146/ -(PB- PAGE 178) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,55,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03.2012 RS.6,55,00,000/ - THROUGH CHEQ UE. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB - PAGE 161 TO 184 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE ANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME - TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS ESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (VII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2, PAGES 185 TO 206 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. FLOWTOP AGENCY PVT. LTD . IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AABCF9036D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U52190WB2012PTC 1 73352AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.15,38,94,946/ - (PB- PAGE 200 ) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,49,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 30.03.201 RS.4,49,00,000/ - THROUGH CHEQUE. . THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB -PAGE 186 TO 206 N THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTH INESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (VIII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PA PER BOOK PAGES- 2,207 TO 226 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. SUKHSAGAR RESIDENCY PVT. LTD. LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS1553N AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011PTC170958AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.56,18 ,93,960/-(P.B-2 PAGES- 220) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,31,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.3.2012 RS. 2,31,00,000/ - THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB -PAGE 208- 226 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETU RN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. PAGE 178) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03.2012 UE. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL PAGE 161 TO 184 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE ANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS ESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - TION 133(6) OF THE ACT. 2, PAGES 185 TO 206 THE . IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AABCF9036D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS 73352AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON PAGE 200 ) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 30.03.201 2 THROUGH CHEQUE. . THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL TO 206 N THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE INESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE 2,207 TO 226 THE M/S. SUKHSAGAR RESIDENCY PVT. LTD. IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS1553N AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011PTC170958AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 220) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.3.2012 RS. THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL 226 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT RN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY WELL AS INCOME APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PR OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (IX) WE N OTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECK6810D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011 PTC 170944 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.56,18,94,080/ COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,54,00,000/ MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 RS. 12,54,00,000/ ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB APPLICANT REGULARLY STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK ST HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE HAPPENED THROUGH B ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (X) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AACCL2111J AND ITS CIN NUM U51909WB2011PTC171524 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.56,18,94,080/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,80,00,000/ HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BA RS.3,80,00,000/ ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCI APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TH E TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. 16 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME - TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PR OVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. OTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2, PAGES 227 TO 261 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. KAMALDHAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECK6810D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011 PTC 170944 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.56,18,94,080/ - AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,54,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 RS. 12,54,00,000/ - THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BO ARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB - PAGE 228 TO 261 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK ST ATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH B ANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (X) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2, PAGES 262 TO 283 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. LABHDHAN IMPEXT PVT. LTD. LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AACCL2111J AND ITS CIN NUM U51909WB2011PTC171524 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.56,18,94,080/ - (P.B- 2, PAGE 277) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,80,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BA NKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.3,80,00,000/ - THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL AVAILABLE IN THE PB -PAGE 163- 283 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCI AL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS E TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ADDUCING PAN AS TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS OVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY AFTER 2, PAGES 227 TO 261 THE M/S. KAMALDHAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD . IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECK6810D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011 PTC 170944 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 RS. ARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL PAGE 228 TO 261 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED ATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS ANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE GETTING THE NOTICE 2, PAGES 262 TO 283 THE IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AACCL2111J AND ITS CIN NUM BER IS U51909WB2011PTC171524 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 2, PAGE 277) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT NKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 A SUM OF THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL 283 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED AL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS E TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY AFTER (XI) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS1845D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51909WB2011PTC171513 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.76,66,93,960/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,76,00,000/ HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.2,76,00,0000/ ASSESSEE S COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM , BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FIL THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE TRANSACTION HAS HAPP DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (XII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECM22 U51109WB2005PTC102343 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.1,54,58,399/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 LAKHS AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION RS.50LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB PAGE 304 TO 326 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE O AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (XIII)WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK OF SHARE APPLICANT WHICH HAS A PAN AAICS8900L AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51109WB2005PTC 102121 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 LAKHS AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 28.02.2012 A SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS SH APPLICATION, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THUS FROM THE DIS ABOVE, IT IS NOTED EXCEPT THE LAST TWO INVESTORS THE OTHER ELEVEN (11) SHARE 17 (XI) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2 PAGES 284 TO 303 T DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. SUBHSREE IMPEX PVT. LTD. LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS1845D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51909WB2011PTC171513 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.76,66,93,960/ - (P.B-2, PAGE-297)AND IN VESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,76,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.2,76,00,0000/ - THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN S COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM , BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB -PAGE 285- 303 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FIL ED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPP ENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (XII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2, PAGES 304 TO 326 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECM22 4E AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51109WB2005PTC102343 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.1,54,58,399/ -(PAGE 313 OF P.B- 2)AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 LAKHS AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 28.02.2012 A SUM OF RS.50LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB PAGE 304 TO 326 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE O NUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (XIII)WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2 PAGES 327 TO 352 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. SRISTI SALES PVT. LTD. IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAICS8900L AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51109WB2005PTC 102121 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.1,12,25,612/ AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 LAKHS AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 28.02.2012 A SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS SH APPLICATION, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB - 2, PAGE 328 TO 352. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THUS FROM THE DIS ABOVE, IT IS NOTED EXCEPT THE LAST TWO INVESTORS THE OTHER ELEVEN (11) SHARE ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. 2 PAGES 284 TO 303 T HE IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS1845D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51909WB2011PTC171513 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON VESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 A SUM OF THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN S COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM , BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL 303 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT ED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE COMPANY AND THE ENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY AFTER 2, PAGES 304 TO 326 THE M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. IT IS A PRIVATE 4E AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51109WB2005PTC102343 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 2)AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 LAKHS AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 28.02.2012 A SUM OF RS.50LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB - PAGE 304 TO 326 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS NUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. 2 PAGES 327 TO 352 THE DETAILS IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAICS8900L AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51109WB2005PTC COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.1,12,25,612/ - AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 LAKHS AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 28.02.2012 A SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS SH ARE APPLICATION, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINANCIAL STATEMENT 2, PAGE 328 TO 352. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THE FINANCIAL APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THUS FROM THE DIS CUSSION ABOVE, IT IS NOTED EXCEPT THE LAST TWO INVESTORS THE OTHER ELEVEN (11) SHARE APPLICANTS OUT OF THIRTEEN (13) SHARE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE AO UNDER SECTION 13 THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND DID NOT DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, AND THE VIEW THUS TAKEN BY THE AO CANNOT BE TERMED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 54. SO, F ROM THE AFORESAID FACTS REVEALED DURING THE SECOND ROUND, WE NOTE THAT AO HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AND ENQUIRED AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 U/S. 263 OF THE ACT (FIRST 263 ORDER) AND FURTHER WE NOTE THA T THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT WHILE ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHILE EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION FOR SECOND TIME HAS NOT MADE EVEN A SINGLE ALLEGATION ABOUT THE NON- COMPLIANCE/FAILURE ON THE PART OF SECOND AO IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 26.03.2016. IN OTHER WORDS, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT FOUND FAULT WITH THE ACTION OF THE SECOND AO IN GIVI NG EFFECT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY HIM WHILE PASSING THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER ON 23.08.2016. THUS, WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE SECOND AO WHILE FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CITS ORDER DATED 23.08.2016 (FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER) HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AND BASED ON THE INQUIRY CONDUCTED AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 352 PAGES WHICH REVEALS THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUIN ENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, THE SATISFACTION OF AO AS ENVISAGED IN SEC. 68 OF THE ACT IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND THE FACT THAT THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS RESPONDED TO SEC. 133(6) NOTICE AND PRODUCED ALL DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REFERRED SUPRA, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS UPON IT ABOUT THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE RESPECTIVE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. SINCE THE AFORESAID EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE SECOND AO IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE ARE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER, THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THE REASSESSMENT ORDE R OF THE AO IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AOS VIEW TO ACCEPT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS WAS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT ANY RATE CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW ON LAW OR FACTS 55. FURTHER, WE ALSO TAKE NOTE THAT ACT, HE HAD OPINED THAT THERE WAS NO DETAILED OR INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY BUT FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS LACK OF ENQUIRY. SO, THE LD. SECOND PR. CIT ACCEPTS THAT THERE WAS ENQUIRY MADE BY THE SECOND AO, HOWEV ENQUIRY. SO WHEN THERE WAS AN ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO THEN THE AO HAS DISCHARGED THE DUTY OF AN INVESTIGATOR. AVAILABLE IS THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER BEFORE THE SEC EASILY EXAMINED THE VERACITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS DATA BASE BY CLICK OF A MOUSE AND COULD HAVE RECORDED HIS FINDING OF FACT IF HE FOUND ANYTHING WRONG WITH THESE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND COULD HAVE POINTED OUT THE ADVERSE FAC THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SO THE INFERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE VERACITY OF THE FACTUAL CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 352 PAGES (PB- 2) COULD NOT BE FACTUALLY CONTROVERTED BY THE SECO AND STILL IF THE LD. PR. CIT IS NOT SATISFIED AND WANTED TO INTERFERE INVOKING JURISDICTION 18 APPLICANTS OUT OF THIRTEEN (13) SHARE - HOLDERS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE FROM SECOND AO UNDER SECTION 13 3(6) OF THE ACT. THUS WE NOTE THAT THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND DID NOT DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, AND THE VIEW THUS TAKEN BY THE AO CANNOT BE TERMED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ROM THE AFORESAID FACTS REVEALED DURING THE SECOND ROUND, WE NOTE THAT AO HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AND ENQUIRED AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 U/S. 263 OF THE ACT (FIRST 263 ORDER) AND FURTHER WE T THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT WHILE ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHILE EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION FOR SECOND TIME HAS NOT MADE EVEN A SINGLE ALLEGATION ABOUT COMPLIANCE/FAILURE ON THE PART OF SECOND AO IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 26.03.2016. IN OTHER WORDS, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT FOUND FAULT WITH THE ACTION OF THE SECOND AO IN NG EFFECT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY HIM WHILE PASSING THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER ON 23.08.2016. THUS, WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE SECOND AO WHILE FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CITS ORDER 23.08.2016 (FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER) HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AND BASED ON THE INQUIRY CONDUCTED AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 352 PAGES WHICH REVEALS THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS ENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, THE SATISFACTION OF AO AS ENVISAGED IN SEC. 68 OF THE ACT IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND THE FACT THAT THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS RESPONDED TO SEC. 133(6) NOTICE AND ALL DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REFERRED SUPRA, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS UPON IT ABOUT THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED THE RESPECTIVE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. SINCE THE AFORESAID EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE SECOND AO IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE ARE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER, THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING R OF THE AO IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW TO ACCEPT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS WAS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT ANY RATE CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW ON LAW OR FACTS FURTHER, WE ALSO TAKE NOTE THAT WHILE HE PROPOSED TO INTERFERE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, HE HAD OPINED THAT THERE WAS NO DETAILED OR INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY BUT FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS LACK OF ENQUIRY. SO, THE LD. SECOND PR. CIT ACCEPTS THAT THERE WAS ENQUIRY MADE BY THE SECOND AO, HOWEV ER, HE CONCLUDES THAT THERE WAS LACK OF ENQUIRY. SO WHEN THERE WAS AN ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO THEN THE AO HAS DISCHARGED THE DUTY OF AN INVESTIGATOR. AND WE NOTE THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE ARE AVAILABLE IS THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER BEFORE THE SEC OND LD. PR. CIT AND EASILY EXAMINED THE VERACITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS DATA BASE BY CLICK OF A MOUSE AND COULD HAVE RECORDED HIS FINDING OF FACT IF HE FOUND ANYTHING WRONG WITH THESE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND COULD HAVE POINTED OUT THE ADVERSE FAC THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SO THE INFERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE VERACITY OF THE FACTUAL CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE 2) COULD NOT BE FACTUALLY CONTROVERTED BY THE SECO AND STILL IF THE LD. PR. CIT IS NOT SATISFIED AND WANTED TO INTERFERE INVOKING JURISDICTION ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. HOLDERS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE FROM SECOND 3(6) OF THE ACT. THUS WE NOTE THAT THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND DID NOT DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, AND THE VIEW THUS TAKEN BY THE AO ROM THE AFORESAID FACTS REVEALED DURING THE SECOND ROUND, WE NOTE THAT AO HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AND ENQUIRED AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 U/S. 263 OF THE ACT (FIRST 263 ORDER) AND FURTHER WE T THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT WHILE ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHILE EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION FOR SECOND TIME HAS NOT MADE EVEN A SINGLE ALLEGATION ABOUT COMPLIANCE/FAILURE ON THE PART OF SECOND AO IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 26.03.2016. IN OTHER WORDS, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT FOUND FAULT WITH THE ACTION OF THE SECOND AO IN NG EFFECT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY HIM WHILE PASSING THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER ON 23.08.2016. THUS, WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE SECOND AO WHILE FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CITS ORDER 23.08.2016 (FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER) HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AND BASED ON THE INQUIRY CONDUCTED AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 352 PAGES WHICH REVEALS THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS ENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, THE SATISFACTION OF AO AS ENVISAGED IN SEC. 68 OF THE ACT IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND THE FACT THAT THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS RESPONDED TO SEC. 133(6) NOTICE AND ALL DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REFERRED SUPRA, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS UPON IT ABOUT THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED THE RESPECTIVE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. SINCE THE AFORESAID EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE SECOND AO IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE ARE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER, THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING R OF THE AO IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW TO ACCEPT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS WAS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT WHILE HE PROPOSED TO INTERFERE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, HE HAD OPINED THAT THERE WAS NO DETAILED OR INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY BUT FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS LACK OF ENQUIRY. SO, THE LD. SECOND PR. CIT ACCEPTS THAT THERE ER, HE CONCLUDES THAT THERE WAS LACK OF ENQUIRY. SO WHEN THERE WAS AN ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO THEN THE AO HAS DISCHARGED AND WE NOTE THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE ARE OND LD. PR. CIT AND HE COULD HAVE EASILY EXAMINED THE VERACITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS DATA BASE BY CLICK OF A MOUSE AND COULD HAVE RECORDED HIS FINDING OF FACT IF HE FOUND ANYTHING WRONG WITH THESE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND COULD HAVE POINTED OUT THE ADVERSE FAC T, IF ANY, WHICH THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SO THE INFERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE VERACITY OF THE FACTUAL CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE 2) COULD NOT BE FACTUALLY CONTROVERTED BY THE SECO ND LD. PR. CIT. AND STILL IF THE LD. PR. CIT IS NOT SATISFIED AND WANTED TO INTERFERE INVOKING JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, HE HAS TO SHOW THAT THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO WAS FLAWED OR THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO WAS ON A WRONG DIRECTION OR ON WRON FACT/LAW OR THAT THE AO MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN FACTUAL INVESTIGATION OR APPLIED THE LAW ERRONEOUSLY IN RESPECT OF THE FACTS COLLECTED BY HIM. FOR DOING SO, IN THE FACTS DISCUSSED SUPRA, HE SECOND (LD. PR. CIT) SHOULD HIMSELF HAD CONDUCTED A CONDUCTED A PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY AND WAS ABLE TO BRING SOME EVIDENCE/MATERIAL ON RECORD TO UPSET THE AOS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OR GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND THUS RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT DECISION OF AOS ENQUIRY WAS FAULTED OR WRONG AND IN THAT PROCESS TRIED TO SHOW THAT IT HAS RESULTED IN A VIEW WHICH IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW WHICH WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED HIS ACTION OF PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH UNFORT THE CASE. SINCE THE AOS VIEW ON THE FACTS COLLECTED AND DISCUSSED IS DEFINITELY A POSSIBLE VIEW, SO IN THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND DISCUSSED IN DETAIL, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT LD. SECOND PR. CIT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE INTERFERED WITH TH WHICH IN ANY CASE CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW SINCE IT IS IN LINE WITH PLETHORA OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF THE SUBJECT. 56. TO SUM UP, WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE SAID FACTS THAT THE SECOND AO HAS CONDUCTED ENQUIRY AS D IRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT ON THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT MATTER I.E. SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE SECOND PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ENQUIRY IS INCORRECT AND IS FLOWING FROM SUSPICI ON ONLY. AND AS DISCUSSED, THE ALLEGATION/FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO FAILED TO COLLECT TOTAL FACTS ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT SPELT OUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHAT HE MEANT BY TOTAL FACTS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS, AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW IN FORCE IN THIS AY 2012 HAVE CALLED FOR WHICH EVER ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/MATERIALS OR ISSUED SUMMONS OR ISSUED NOTICES AND COLLECTED THOSE FACTS WHICH ACCORDING TO SECOND LD. PR. CIT, THE AO OMITTED TO COLLECT AND THEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THOSE ACTIONS/DOCUMENTS WHICH HE COLLECTED IN THAT PROCESS GAVE RESULT TO A DIFFERENT FINDING OF FACT WHICH WILL TURN UPSIDE DOWN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE ACTIONS/OMISSION OF AO IN CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION WAS ERRONEOUS, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT THE CASE BEFORE US. AND EQUALLY BAD IS THE BALD ALLEGATION/FAULT THAT SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED TOTAL FACTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BEING VAGUE AND BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND SO MERITLESS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AS DISCUSSED SUPRA, AND STILL IF THE SECOND PR. CIT HAD TO FIND THE ORDER OF SECOND AO ERRONEOUS FOR LACK OF ENQUIRY OR FOR NOT COLLECTING THE ENTIRE FACTS, THEN THE SECOND PR. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR THE ADDITIONAL FACTS WHICH HE THINKS THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE OR THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THEN EXPLAINED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AS TO WHAT EFF ECT THOSE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WOULD HAVE MADE ON THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER/REASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN OTHER WORDS THE IMPACT ON THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF FRAMING THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER DUE TO THE FAILURE OF SECOND AOS OMISSION TO COLLECT THE AD DITIONAL DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND PR. CIT HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY SUCH EXERCISE OR EVEN SPELLED OUT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH ALL DOCUMENTS THE SECOND AO FAILED TO COLLECT FOR CONSIDERING THE TOTAL FACTS; AND EVEN IF WE PRESUME HE HAS CONDUCTED SUCH AN EXERCISE, THEN HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING OUT ANY ADVERSE FACTUAL FINDING TO UPSET THE VIEW OF SECOND AO. SO WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE VAGUE ALLEGATION OF SECOND PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED THE FULL FACTS NECESSARY TO D ECIDE THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM.SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND AO, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHO IS A QUASI AS AN INVESTIGATOR AS WELL AS AN ADJUDICATOR. LOOKING FROM ANOTHER ANGLE OF DOCTRINE OF MERGER CA NVASSED BEFORE US, WE NOTE FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT THE CIT 4 BY PASSING THE SECOND REVISIONAL ORDER DATED 14.03.2019 HAS SUBSTITUTED THE FIRST PR. CITS ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 23.08.2016 WITH HIS OWN ORDER WHICH HE CANNOT DO SINCE THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER/RE 19 U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, HE HAS TO SHOW THAT THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO WAS FLAWED OR THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO WAS ON A WRONG DIRECTION OR ON WRON G ASSUMPTION OF FACT/LAW OR THAT THE AO MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN FACTUAL INVESTIGATION OR APPLIED THE LAW ERRONEOUSLY IN RESPECT OF THE FACTS COLLECTED BY HIM. FOR DOING SO, IN THE FACTS DISCUSSED SUPRA, HE SECOND (LD. PR. CIT) SHOULD HIMSELF HAD CONDUCTED A N ENQUIRY OR AT LEAST CONDUCTED A PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY AND WAS ABLE TO BRING SOME EVIDENCE/MATERIAL ON RECORD TO UPSET THE AOS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OR GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND THUS RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT DECISION OF AOS ENQUIRY WAS FAULTED OR WRONG AND IN THAT PROCESS TRIED TO SHOW THAT IT HAS RESULTED IN A VIEW WHICH IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW WHICH WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED HIS ACTION OF PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH UNFORT THE CASE. SINCE THE AOS VIEW ON THE FACTS COLLECTED AND DISCUSSED IS DEFINITELY A POSSIBLE VIEW, SO IN THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND DISCUSSED IN DETAIL, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT LD. SECOND PR. CIT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE INTERFERED WITH TH E AOS REASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IN ANY CASE CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW SINCE IT IS IN LINE WITH PLETHORA OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF THE SUBJECT. TO SUM UP, WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE SAID FACTS THAT THE SECOND AO HAS CONDUCTED IRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT ON THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT MATTER I.E. SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF SECOND PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ENQUIRY IS INCORRECT AND IS ON ONLY. AND AS DISCUSSED, THE ALLEGATION/FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO FAILED TO COLLECT TOTAL FACTS ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT SPELT OUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER TOTAL FACTS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS, AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW IN FORCE IN THIS AY 2012 - 13, THEN THE LD. PR. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR WHICH EVER ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/MATERIALS OR ISSUED SUMMONS OR COLLECTED THOSE FACTS WHICH ACCORDING TO SECOND LD. PR. CIT, THE AO OMITTED TO COLLECT AND THEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THOSE ACTIONS/DOCUMENTS WHICH HE COLLECTED IN THAT PROCESS GAVE RESULT TO A DIFFERENT FINDING OF FACT WHICH WILL TURN UPSIDE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE ACTIONS/OMISSION OF AO IN CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION WAS ERRONEOUS, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT THE CASE BEFORE US. AND EQUALLY BAD IS THE BALD ALLEGATION/FAULT THAT SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BEING VAGUE AND BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND SO MERITLESS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AS DISCUSSED SUPRA, AND STILL IF THE SECOND PR. CIT HAD TO FIND THE ORDER OF SECOND AO ERRONEOUS FOR LACK OF OR FOR NOT COLLECTING THE ENTIRE FACTS, THEN THE SECOND PR. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR THE ADDITIONAL FACTS WHICH HE THINKS THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE OR THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THEN EXPLAINED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AS TO ECT THOSE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WOULD HAVE MADE ON THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER/REASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN OTHER WORDS THE IMPACT ON THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF FRAMING THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER DUE TO THE FAILURE OF SECOND AOS OMISSION TO DITIONAL DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND PR. CIT HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY SUCH EXERCISE OR EVEN SPELLED OUT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH ALL DOCUMENTS THE SECOND AO FAILED TO COLLECT FOR CONSIDERING THE TOTAL FACTS; AND EVEN IF WE CONDUCTED SUCH AN EXERCISE, THEN HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING OUT ANY ADVERSE FACTUAL FINDING TO UPSET THE VIEW OF SECOND AO. SO WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE VAGUE ALLEGATION OF SECOND PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED THE FULL FACTS ECIDE THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM.SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND AO, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHO IS A QUASI - JUDICIAL OFFICE HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUAL ROLE AS AN INVESTIGATOR AS WELL AS AN ADJUDICATOR. LOOKING FROM ANOTHER ANGLE OF DOCTRINE OF NVASSED BEFORE US, WE NOTE FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT THE 4 BY PASSING THE SECOND REVISIONAL ORDER DATED 14.03.2019 HAS SUBSTITUTED THE FIRST PR. CITS ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 23.08.2016 WITH HIS OWN ORDER CANNOT DO SINCE THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER/RE - ASSESSMENT OF THE SECOND AO ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, HE HAS TO SHOW THAT THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO WAS FLAWED OR THE G ASSUMPTION OF FACT/LAW OR THAT THE AO MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN FACTUAL INVESTIGATION OR APPLIED THE LAW ERRONEOUSLY IN RESPECT OF THE FACTS COLLECTED BY HIM. FOR DOING SO, IN THE FACTS DISCUSSED N ENQUIRY OR AT LEAST CONDUCTED A PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY AND WAS ABLE TO BRING SOME EVIDENCE/MATERIAL ON RECORD TO UPSET THE AOS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OR GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND THUS RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE DECISION OF AOS ENQUIRY WAS FAULTED OR WRONG AND IN THAT PROCESS TRIED TO SHOW THAT IT HAS RESULTED IN A VIEW WHICH IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW WHICH WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED HIS ACTION OF PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH UNFORT UNATELY IS NOT THE CASE. SINCE THE AOS VIEW ON THE FACTS COLLECTED AND DISCUSSED IS DEFINITELY A POSSIBLE VIEW, SO IN THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND DISCUSSED IN DETAIL, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION E AOS REASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IN ANY CASE CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW SINCE IT IS IN LINE WITH TO SUM UP, WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE SAID FACTS THAT THE SECOND AO HAS CONDUCTED IRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT ON THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT MATTER I.E. SHARE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF SECOND PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ENQUIRY IS INCORRECT AND IS ON ONLY. AND AS DISCUSSED, THE ALLEGATION/FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO FAILED TO COLLECT TOTAL FACTS ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT SPELT OUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER TOTAL FACTS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS 13, THEN THE LD. PR. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR WHICH EVER ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/MATERIALS OR ISSUED SUMMONS OR COLLECTED THOSE FACTS WHICH ACCORDING TO SECOND LD. PR. CIT, THE AO OMITTED TO COLLECT AND THEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THOSE ACTIONS/DOCUMENTS WHICH HE COLLECTED IN THAT PROCESS GAVE RESULT TO A DIFFERENT FINDING OF FACT WHICH WILL TURN UPSIDE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE ACTIONS/OMISSION OF AO IN CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION WAS ERRONEOUS, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT THE CASE BEFORE US. AND EQUALLY BAD IS THE BALD ALLEGATION/FAULT THAT SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BEING VAGUE AND BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND SO MERITLESS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AS DISCUSSED SUPRA, AND STILL IF THE SECOND PR. CIT HAD TO FIND THE ORDER OF SECOND AO ERRONEOUS FOR LACK OF OR FOR NOT COLLECTING THE ENTIRE FACTS, THEN THE SECOND PR. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR THE ADDITIONAL FACTS WHICH HE THINKS THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE OR THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THEN EXPLAINED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AS TO ECT THOSE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WOULD HAVE MADE ON THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER/REASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN OTHER WORDS THE IMPACT ON THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF FRAMING THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER DUE TO THE FAILURE OF SECOND AOS OMISSION TO DITIONAL DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND PR. CIT HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY SUCH EXERCISE OR EVEN SPELLED OUT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH ALL DOCUMENTS THE SECOND AO FAILED TO COLLECT FOR CONSIDERING THE TOTAL FACTS; AND EVEN IF WE CONDUCTED SUCH AN EXERCISE, THEN HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING OUT ANY ADVERSE FACTUAL FINDING TO UPSET THE VIEW OF SECOND AO. SO WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE VAGUE ALLEGATION OF SECOND PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED THE FULL FACTS ECIDE THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM.SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND JUDICIAL OFFICE HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUAL ROLE AS AN INVESTIGATOR AS WELL AS AN ADJUDICATOR. LOOKING FROM ANOTHER ANGLE OF DOCTRINE OF NVASSED BEFORE US, WE NOTE FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT THE SECOND LD. PR. 4 BY PASSING THE SECOND REVISIONAL ORDER DATED 14.03.2019 HAS SUBSTITUTED THE FIRST PR. CITS ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 23.08.2016 WITH HIS OWN ORDER ASSESSMENT OF THE SECOND AO DATED 07.12.2016 WAS PURSUANT TO THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AND ON THE VERY SAME SUBJECT MATTER ON WHICH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS/INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN BY TH E FIRST LD. PR.CIT, WHICH DIRECTION SINCE HAVING BEEN COMPLIED BY THE AO, BRINGS INTO OPERATION THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER THE SUBJECT MATTER I.E. SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY. RESULTANTLY THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT, AGAIN CANNOT RAKE TH E SAME SUBJECT MATTER WITHOUT THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT IN THE SECOND REVISIONAL ORDER SPELLS OUT WHERE THE ERROR HAPPENED TO SECOND AO AS AN INVESTIGATOR OR ADJUDICATOR, WHICH EXERCISE THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT HAS NOT DONE, SO THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO AGAIN ASK THE AO TO START THE INVESTIGATION IN THE WAY HE THINKS IT PROPER ON THE VERY SAME SUBJECT ON WHICH MERGER HAS TAKEN PLACE BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER OF FIRST LD. PR. CIT. AND IF THIS PRACTICE IS ALLOWED, THEN THERE WILL BE NO END TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MEANING NO FINALITY TO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THE PARLIAMENT IN ITS WISDOM HAS BROUGHT IN SAFE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO BE SATISFIED STRICTLY BEFORE ASSUMPTION OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION . BE THAT AS IT MAY BE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT WITHOUT SATISFYING THE CONDITION PRECEDENT U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAS INVOKED THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND TIME), SO ALL HIS ACTIONS ARE AB INITIO VOID. 8. ON SIMILAR FACT S, WHEN THE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WAS EXERCISED SECOND TIME BY THE LD. PR. CIT, THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OMKAR INFRACON PRIVATE (SUPRA) 13. FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT EVEN THOUGH THE RE ASIDE AGAIN BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF PR. CIT, WE NOTE THAT ONE OF THE FAULTS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PR. CIT TO INVOKE HIS REVISIONARY JURISDICTION WERE (A) DETAILED INVESTIGATION /VERIFICATION IN THE NATURE OF INDEPENDENT ENQUIR IDENTIFY, CREDIT WORTHINESS, AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE CARRIED BUT NOT DONE AND MERELY ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THIS ALLEGATION OF LD. PR. CIT. WE NOTE THAT AO CASE HAD ISSUED DURING THE FIRST AND SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL DETAILS AND THE AO EXAMINED THE SAME, AND THEREAFTER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND VERIFIED T SUMMON U/S 131 TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS TO ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS. AND WE NOTE THAT ALL OF THEM RESPONDED AND DULY APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED AND ONLY ONE SHAREHOLDER AN INDIVID SHAREHOLDER'S COMPANIES WERE GROUP COMPANIES AND THE NEW INDIVIDUAL SHARE SUBSCRIBER WAS FATHER OF A DIRECTOR. (B). WE NOTE THAT NEXT FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PR. CIT WAS THE AO FAILED TO CARRYOUT DETAILED INVESTIGATION AS TO WAS NEVER A KNOWN COMPANY. ACCORDING TO US, THE LD PR. CIT DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACTS IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND DID NOT HAD TAKEN NOTICE OF THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THESE WERE THE PROMOTERS WH THE COMPANY IN THE YEAR 2010 FOR THE BUSINESS OF MAKING ASH SHAREHOLDER INDIVIDUAL WAS FATHER OF AN EXISTING DIRECTOR; AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR HAD STARTED EXPANSION ACTIVITIES OF THE BUSINESS O FLY ASH BRICKS. WE NOTE THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL INFUSED INTO THE COMPANY HAS YIELDED RESULT. AND MOREOVER THE INVESTOR COMPANIES WERE GROUP COMPANIES AND SHARES ALLOTTED THIS YEAR WAS TO EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS AND ONLY NEW SHAREHOLDERS STATED EARLIER, THE PROMOTER AND GROUP COMPANIES FOUND POTENTIAL OF GROWTH IN THE BUSINESS AND HAD MADE THE INVESTMENT AND PREMIUM WHICH WAS AGREED UPON MUTUALLY BY 20 DATED 07.12.2016 WAS PURSUANT TO THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AND ON THE VERY SAME SUBJECT MATTER ON WHICH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS/INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN E FIRST LD. PR.CIT, WHICH DIRECTION SINCE HAVING BEEN COMPLIED BY THE AO, BRINGS INTO OPERATION THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER THE SUBJECT MATTER I.E. SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY. RESULTANTLY THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT, AGAIN CANNOT RAKE E SAME SUBJECT MATTER WITHOUT THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT IN THE SECOND REVISIONAL ORDER SPELLS OUT WHERE THE ERROR HAPPENED TO SECOND AO AS AN INVESTIGATOR OR ADJUDICATOR, WHICH EXERCISE THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT HAS NOT DONE, SO THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO AGAIN ASK THE AO TO START THE INVESTIGATION IN THE WAY HE THINKS IT PROPER ON THE VERY SAME SUBJECT ON WHICH MERGER HAS TAKEN PLACE BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER OF FIRST LD. PR. CIT. AND IF THIS PRACTICE IS ALLOWED, THEN THERE WILL BE NO END TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MEANING NO FINALITY TO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THE PARLIAMENT IN ITS WISDOM HAS BROUGHT IN SAFE - GUARDS, RESTRICTIONS & CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO BE SATISFIED STRICTLY BEFORE ASSUMPTION OF REVISIONAL . BE THAT AS IT MAY BE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT WITHOUT SATISFYING THE CONDITION PRECEDENT U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAS INVOKED THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND TIME), SO ALL HIS ACTIONS ARE AB INITIO VOID. S, WHEN THE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WAS EXERCISED SECOND TIME BY THE LD. PR. CIT, THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER:- 13. FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT EVEN THOUGH THE RE -ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 5.11.2016 WAS SET ASIDE AGAIN BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF PR. CIT, WE NOTE THAT ONE OF THE FAULTS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PR. CIT TO INVOKE HIS REVISIONARY JURISDICTION WERE (A) DETAILED INVESTIGATION /VERIFICATION IN THE NATURE OF INDEPENDENT ENQUIR IDENTIFY, CREDIT WORTHINESS, AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE CARRIED BUT NOT DONE AND MERELY ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THIS ALLEGATION OF LD. PR. CIT. WE NOTE THAT AO CASE HAD ISSUED DURING THE FIRST AND SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL DETAILS AND THE AO EXAMINED THE SAME, AND THEREAFTER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND VERIFIED T HE DETAILS, AND ISSUED SUMMON U/S 131 TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS TO ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS. AND WE NOTE THAT ALL OF THEM RESPONDED AND DULY APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED AND ONLY ONE SHAREHOLDER AN INDIVID UAL WAS NEW AND ALL THE SHAREHOLDER'S COMPANIES WERE GROUP COMPANIES AND THE NEW INDIVIDUAL SHARE SUBSCRIBER WAS FATHER OF A DIRECTOR. (B). WE NOTE THAT NEXT FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PR. CIT WAS THE AO FAILED TO CARRYOUT DETAILED INVESTIGATION AS TO HOW THEY DECIDED TO INVEST IN A COMPANY AT PREMIUM WHICH WAS NEVER A KNOWN COMPANY. ACCORDING TO US, THE LD PR. CIT DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACTS IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND DID NOT HAD TAKEN NOTICE OF THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THESE WERE THE PROMOTERS WH THE COMPANY IN THE YEAR 2010 FOR THE BUSINESS OF MAKING ASH - FLY BRICKS AND THE ONLY NEW SHAREHOLDER INDIVIDUAL WAS FATHER OF AN EXISTING DIRECTOR; AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR HAD STARTED EXPANSION ACTIVITIES OF THE BUSINESS O F MAKING/MANUFACTURING FLY ASH BRICKS. WE NOTE THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL INFUSED INTO THE COMPANY HAS YIELDED RESULT. AND MOREOVER THE INVESTOR COMPANIES WERE GROUP COMPANIES AND SHARES ALLOTTED THIS YEAR WAS TO EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS AND ONLY NEW SHAREHOLDERS WAS THE FATHER OF A DIRECTOR. AS STATED EARLIER, THE PROMOTER AND GROUP COMPANIES FOUND POTENTIAL OF GROWTH IN THE BUSINESS AND HAD MADE THE INVESTMENT AND PREMIUM WHICH WAS AGREED UPON MUTUALLY BY ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. DATED 07.12.2016 WAS PURSUANT TO THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AND ON THE VERY SAME SUBJECT MATTER ON WHICH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS/INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN E FIRST LD. PR.CIT, WHICH DIRECTION SINCE HAVING BEEN COMPLIED BY THE AO, BRINGS INTO OPERATION THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER THE SUBJECT MATTER I.E. SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY. RESULTANTLY THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT, AGAIN CANNOT RAKE -UP E SAME SUBJECT MATTER WITHOUT THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT IN THE SECOND REVISIONAL ORDER SPELLS OUT WHERE THE ERROR HAPPENED TO SECOND AO AS AN INVESTIGATOR OR ADJUDICATOR, WHICH EXERCISE THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT HAS NOT DONE, SO THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO AGAIN ASK THE AO TO START THE INVESTIGATION IN THE WAY HE THINKS IT PROPER ON THE VERY SAME SUBJECT ON WHICH MERGER HAS TAKEN PLACE BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER OF FIRST LD. PR. CIT. AND IF THIS PRACTICE IS ALLOWED, THEN THERE WILL BE NO END TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MEANING NO FINALITY TO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT IS GUARDS, RESTRICTIONS & CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO BE SATISFIED STRICTLY BEFORE ASSUMPTION OF REVISIONAL . BE THAT AS IT MAY BE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT WITHOUT SATISFYING THE CONDITION PRECEDENT U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAS INVOKED THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND TIME), SO ALL HIS ACTIONS ARE AB INITIO VOID. S, WHEN THE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WAS EXERCISED SECOND TIME BY THE LD. PR. CIT, THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE M/S DATED 5.11.2016 WAS SET ASIDE AGAIN BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF PR. CIT, WE NOTE THAT ONE OF THE FAULTS POINTED OUT BY (A) DETAILED INVESTIGATION /VERIFICATION IN THE NATURE OF INDEPENDENT ENQUIR Y REGARDING IDENTIFY, CREDIT WORTHINESS, AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE CARRIED HOWEVER, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THIS ALLEGATION OF LD. PR. CIT. WE NOTE THAT AO IN THIS CASE HAD ISSUED DURING THE FIRST AND SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL DETAILS AND THE AO EXAMINED THE SAME, AND HE DETAILS, AND ISSUED SUMMON U/S 131 TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS TO ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS. AND WE NOTE THAT ALL OF THEM RESPONDED AND DULY APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND THEIR UAL WAS NEW AND ALL THE SHAREHOLDER'S COMPANIES WERE GROUP COMPANIES AND THE NEW INDIVIDUAL SHARE SUBSCRIBER (B). WE NOTE THAT NEXT FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PR. CIT WAS THE AO FAILED TO CARRYOUT HOW THEY DECIDED TO INVEST IN A COMPANY AT PREMIUM WHICH ACCORDING TO US, THE LD PR. CIT DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACTS IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND DID NOT HAD TAKEN NOTICE OF THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THESE WERE THE PROMOTERS WH O STARTED FLY BRICKS AND THE ONLY NEW SHAREHOLDER INDIVIDUAL WAS FATHER OF AN EXISTING DIRECTOR; AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THIS F MAKING/MANUFACTURING FLY ASH BRICKS. WE NOTE THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL INFUSED INTO THE COMPANY HAS YIELDED RESULT. AND MOREOVER THE INVESTOR COMPANIES WERE GROUP COMPANIES AND SHARES ALLOTTED THIS YEAR WAS THE FATHER OF A DIRECTOR. AS STATED EARLIER, THE PROMOTER AND GROUP COMPANIES FOUND POTENTIAL OF GROWTH IN THE BUSINESS AND HAD MADE THE INVESTMENT AND PREMIUM WHICH WAS AGREED UPON MUTUALLY BY ALL THE EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION T EXPECTED OF IT. AFTER APPRECIATING THESE FACTS AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FINANCIAL RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS ON THE DATE OF REASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THE GENUINITY OF THE TRANSACTION, SO NOTHING THE LD. PR. CIT. (C) THE NEXT FAULT FOUND BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE PREMIUM. FROM THE AFORESAID REASONS (SUPRA) (B), THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE TRANSACTION WH ICH ON THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND IS A PROBABLE VIEW. (D) THE OTHER FAULT NOTED BY LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO COLLECT RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN ORDER TO REACH A LOGICAL CONCLUSION. WE DO NOT COUNTENANCE THIS FAULT POINTED OUT BY LD. PR. CIT FOR THE FIRST OF ALL A VAGUE ALLEGATION WITHOUT SPELLING OUT WHAT RELEVANT EVIDENCES WERE NOT COLLECTED BY THE AO. WE NOTE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED DOCUMENTS BEFORE AO, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED BEFORE US, WHICH IS RUNNING TO THREE (3) V VOLUME II 231 PAGES, VOLUME III INDIVIDUAL SHARE HOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND AFTER RECORDING THEIR STATEMENTS, AND AFTER VERIFYING THE DOCUMENTS PRO CAPITAL/PREMIUM INFUSED INTO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH ACTION OF AO CANNOT BE CALLED A PERVERSE ORDER AND ACCORDING TO US, THE AO FROM THE ACTIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AND ADJU CANNOT BE CALLED AN UN- SUSTAINABLE VIEW ON FACTS OR LAW. (E) THE OTHER FAULT TAKEN NOTE BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE ALL BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD. TO THIS ALLEGATION OF LD. PR. CI DURING THE FIRST AND SECOND ROUND HAD FILED BEFORE AO ALL THE RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS. BEFORE US ALSO ALL COPIES AND DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS, HAVE BEEN FILED AND WE FIND THAT AO DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDING CALLED FOR THE SAME AND EXAMINED IT, SO HE HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE OBSERVATION AGAINST IT. SO, LD. PR. CITS ALLEGATION IN RESPECT OF NONEXAMINATION OF BANK ACCOUNTS ARE BASELESS AND DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. (F) THE OTHER FAULT POINTED OU TRAIL WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS INTO MANUFACTURING OF BRICKS USING FLY ASH AND HAD SET UP ITS FACTORY AND THE SHARE HOLDER ARE THE PROMOTERS/GROUP COMPANIES AND NO ALLEGATION HAS BEEN LEVELLED AGAINST THE SHAREHOLDERS THAT THEY ARE ENTRY PROVIDERS. WE NOTE THAT EARLIER CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THEM HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN PREVIOUS YEARS, AND ALSO THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE EARLIER YEARS OF ASSESSMENT HAVE NOT BEEN REOPENED T THERE WAS SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE SAME. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED SUPRA, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT. (G) THE LAST FAULT TAKEN NOTE BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PRIMA FACIE SUFFERS FROM INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRY. WE DO NOT COUNTENANCE THIS ALLEGATION OF THE LD. PR. CIT. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED IN DETAIL ABOUT HOW THE AO HAS CALLED THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE HOLDERS AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND RECO DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE SHAREHOLDERS HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINITY OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION WHO ARE NONE OTHER THAN THE PROMOTER 21 ALL THE EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION T HE EXPANSION AND FUTURE RETURN EXPECTED OF IT. AFTER APPRECIATING THESE FACTS AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FINANCIAL RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS ON THE DATE OF REASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THE GENUINITY OF THE TRANSACTION, SO NOTHING TURNS AROUND IN RESPECT OF THIS FAULT RAISED BY (C) THE NEXT FAULT FOUND BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE PREMIUM. FROM THE AFORESAID REASONS (SUPRA) (B), THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE ICH ON THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND IS A PROBABLE VIEW. (D) THE OTHER FAULT NOTED BY LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO COLLECT RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN ORDER TO REACH A LOGICAL CONCLUSION. WE DO NOT COUNTENANCE THIS FAULT POINTED OUT BY LD. PR. CIT FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IT IS FIRST OF ALL A VAGUE ALLEGATION WITHOUT SPELLING OUT WHAT RELEVANT EVIDENCES WERE NOT COLLECTED BY THE AO. WE NOTE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED DOCUMENTS BEFORE AO, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED BEFORE US, WHICH IS RUNNING TO THREE (3) V OLUMES. [ VOLUME I VOLUME II 231 PAGES, VOLUME III - 362 PAGES;] AND THE AO AFTER PERSONALLY SUMMONING THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE HOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND AFTER RECORDING THEIR STATEMENTS, AND AFTER VERIFYING THE DOCUMENTS PRO DUCED BEFORE HIM, HAS ACCEPTED THE SHARE CAPITAL/PREMIUM INFUSED INTO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH ACTION OF AO CANNOT BE CALLED A PERVERSE ORDER AND ACCORDING TO US, THE AO FROM THE ACTIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AND ADJU DICATOR AND TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW WHICH SUSTAINABLE VIEW ON FACTS OR LAW. (E) THE OTHER FAULT TAKEN NOTE BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE ALL BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD. TO THIS ALLEGATION OF LD. PR. CI T, WE ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND THE SAME SINCE THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FIRST AND SECOND ROUND HAD FILED BEFORE AO ALL THE RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS. BEFORE US ALSO ALL COPIES AND DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS, HAVE BEEN FILED AND WE FIND THAT AO MENT PROCEEDING CALLED FOR THE SAME AND EXAMINED IT, SO HE HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE OBSERVATION AGAINST IT. SO, LD. PR. CITS ALLEGATION IN RESPECT OF NONEXAMINATION OF BANK ACCOUNTS ARE BASELESS AND DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. (F) THE OTHER FAULT POINTED OU T BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO TRACE OUT THE MONEY WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS INTO MANUFACTURING OF BRICKS USING FLY ASH AND HAD SET UP ITS FACTORY AND THE SHARE HOLDER ARE THE PROMOTERS/GROUP COMPANIES AND NO BEEN LEVELLED AGAINST THE SHAREHOLDERS THAT THEY ARE ENTRY PROVIDERS. WE NOTE THAT EARLIER CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THEM HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN PREVIOUS YEARS, AND ALSO THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE EARLIER YEARS OF ASSESSMENT HAVE NOT BEEN REOPENED T THERE WAS SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE SAME. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED SUPRA, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT. (G) THE LAST FAULT TAKEN NOTE BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PRIMA FACIE SUFFERS FROM INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRY. WE DO NOT COUNTENANCE THIS ALLEGATION OF THE LD. PR. CIT. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED IN DETAIL ABOUT HOW THE AO HAS CALLED THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE HOLDERS AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND RECO RDED THEIR STATEMENTS AND GONE THROUGH THE VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE SHAREHOLDERS HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINITY OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION WHO ARE NONE OTHER THAN THE PROMOTER S, DIRECTORS AND GROUP COMPANIES AND THE AO AFTER EXAMINING AND ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. HE EXPANSION AND FUTURE RETURN EXPECTED OF IT. AFTER APPRECIATING THESE FACTS AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FINANCIAL RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS ON THE DATE OF REASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAD ACCEPTED TURNS AROUND IN RESPECT OF THIS FAULT RAISED BY (C) THE NEXT FAULT FOUND BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE PREMIUM. FROM THE AFORESAID REASONS (SUPRA) (B), THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE (D) THE OTHER FAULT NOTED BY LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO COLLECT RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN SIMPLE REASON THAT IT IS FIRST OF ALL A VAGUE ALLEGATION WITHOUT SPELLING OUT WHAT RELEVANT EVIDENCES WERE NOT COLLECTED BY THE AO. WE NOTE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED DOCUMENTS BEFORE AO, COPIES OF WHICH OLUMES. [ VOLUME I -201 PAGES, 362 PAGES;] AND THE AO AFTER PERSONALLY SUMMONING THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE HOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND AFTER RECORDING THEIR DUCED BEFORE HIM, HAS ACCEPTED THE SHARE CAPITAL/PREMIUM INFUSED INTO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH ACTION OF AO CANNOT BE CALLED A PERVERSE ORDER AND ACCORDING TO US, THE AO FROM THE ACTIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE HAS DICATOR AND TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW WHICH (E) THE OTHER FAULT TAKEN NOTE BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE ALL BANK T, WE ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND THE SAME SINCE THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FIRST AND SECOND ROUND HAD FILED BEFORE AO ALL THE RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS. BEFORE US ALSO ALL COPIES AND DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS, HAVE BEEN FILED AND WE FIND THAT AO MENT PROCEEDING CALLED FOR THE SAME AND EXAMINED IT, SO HE HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE OBSERVATION AGAINST IT. SO, LD. PR. CITS ALLEGATION IN RESPECT OF NONEXAMINATION T BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO TRACE OUT THE MONEY WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS INTO MANUFACTURING OF BRICKS USING FLY ASH AND HAD SET UP ITS FACTORY AND THE SHARE HOLDER ARE THE PROMOTERS/GROUP COMPANIES AND NO BEEN LEVELLED AGAINST THE SHAREHOLDERS THAT THEY ARE ENTRY PROVIDERS. WE NOTE THAT EARLIER CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THEM HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN PREVIOUS YEARS, AND ALSO THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE EARLIER YEARS OF ASSESSMENT HAVE NOT BEEN REOPENED T HOUGH THERE WAS SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE SAME. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED SUPRA, WE (G) THE LAST FAULT TAKEN NOTE BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PRIMA FACIE WE DO NOT COUNTENANCE THIS ALLEGATION OF THE LD. PR. CIT. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED IN DETAIL ABOUT HOW THE AO HAS CALLED THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE HOLDERS AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE RDED THEIR STATEMENTS AND GONE THROUGH THE VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE SHAREHOLDERS HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINITY OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION WHO ARE NONE S, DIRECTORS AND GROUP COMPANIES AND THE AO AFTER EXAMINING AND SATISFYING HIMSELF ABOUT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM HAS ACCEPTED IT. THUS IT IS NOTED THAT INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRY WAS MADE AND FURTHER IT IS NOT POINTED OUT BY LD. PR. CIT AS TO WHAT FURTHER ENQUIRY WAS NEEDED OR HOW THE ENQUIRY MADE BY AO IS WRONG, WITHOUT WHICH IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED SUPRA, THE LD PR CIT CANNOT TERM THE ORDER OF AO AS ERRONEOUS. 15. THUS, WE FIND THAT DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING PURSUANT REVISIONAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DATED 10.06.2016 AND PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT, THE AO IN THE SECOND ROUND HAD SUMMONED THE DIRECTORS OF GROUP COMPANIES AS WELL AS THAT OF ASSESSEE AND EXAMINED THE B STATEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THEM TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS ON THEM ABOUT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE AO HAS RECORDED THEIR STATEMENT DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN HE HAS ELICITED ANSWERS ABOUT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS WELL AS THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT ETC. SO, FROM THE AFORESAID ACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE AO DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CANNOT BE FOUND THUS, WE NOTE THAT AO HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AS PER THE DIRECTION OF LD. PR. CIT DATED 10.06.2016 U/S. 263 OF THE ACT (FIRST 263 ORDER) AND FURTHER WE NOTE THAT THE LD. PR. CIT WHILE ISSUING THE SHOW FOR SECOND TIME HAS NOT MADE EVEN A WHISPER ABOUT THE NON PART OF AO IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT DATED 10.06.2016 WHILE SETTING ASIDE TH E ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 20.03.2015. AND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT FOUND FAULT WITH THE ACTION OF THE AO IN GIVING EFFECT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY HIM WHILE PASSING THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER ON 10. 06.2016. THUS, WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CITS ORDER DATED 10.06.2016 (FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER) HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF LD. PR. CIT AND BASED ON THE INQUIRY CONDUCTED AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 794 PAGES WHICH REVEALS THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, THE SATISFACTION OF AO AS SEC. 68 OF THE ACT IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS/DIRECTORS PARTICIPATING IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REFERRED SUPRA, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE RESPECTIVE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. SINCE THE AFORESAID EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL AS WELL AS REASSESSMENT PROCEEDI THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER AND THE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED OF THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE GROUP COMPANY SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, THE LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO IN RESPECT BY THE ASSESSEE AS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE LD. PR. CIT BASED ON AN ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY HIMSELF IN THE SECOND ROUND ATLEAST IS ABLE TO UPSET THE AOS SATISFACTION IN SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND HIS DECISION NOT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AOS V IEW TO ACCEPT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT ANY RATE CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW ON LAW OR FACTS. 25. THUS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS OF THE HONBLE APEX/HIGH COURT/TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACTION/VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO AFTER ENQUIRY MADE BY HIM AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CIT IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.06.2016 P URSUANT TO WHICH THE AO HAS REASSESSED THE ASSESSEE AFTER INQUIRY AND ACCEPTED THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND CANNOT BE HELD TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW IN FACTS OR LAW, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ACTION OF 22 SATISFYING HIMSELF ABOUT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM HAS ACCEPTED IT. THUS IT IS NOTED THAT INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRY WAS MADE AND FURTHER IT IS NOT POINTED OUT BY LD. WHAT FURTHER ENQUIRY WAS NEEDED OR HOW THE ENQUIRY MADE BY AO IS WRONG, WITHOUT WHICH IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED SUPRA, THE LD PR CIT CANNOT TERM THE ORDER OF AO AS ERRONEOUS. THUS, WE FIND THAT DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING PURSUANT REVISIONAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DATED 10.06.2016 AND PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT, THE AO IN THE SECOND ROUND HAD SUMMONED THE DIRECTORS OF GROUP COMPANIES AS WELL AS THAT OF ASSESSEE AND EXAMINED THE B STATEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THEM TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS ON THEM ABOUT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE AO HAS RECORDED THEIR STATEMENT DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN HE HAS ELICITED ANSWERS ABOUT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS WELL AS THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT ETC. SO, FROM THE AFORESAID ACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE AO DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT WITH FOR LACK OF ENQUIRY AND THUS, WE NOTE THAT AO HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AS PER THE DIRECTION OF LD. PR. CIT DATED 10.06.2016 U/S. 263 OF THE ACT (FIRST 263 ORDER) AND FURTHER WE NOTE THAT THE LD. PR. CIT WHILE ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHILE EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION FOR SECOND TIME HAS NOT MADE EVEN A WHISPER ABOUT THE NON - COMPLIANCE/FAILURE ON THE PART OF AO IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT DATED 10.06.2016 E ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 20.03.2015. AND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT FOUND FAULT WITH THE ACTION OF THE AO IN GIVING EFFECT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY HIM WHILE PASSING THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER ON 06.2016. THUS, WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CITS ORDER DATED 10.06.2016 (FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER) HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF LD. PR. CIT AND BASED ON THE INQUIRY CONDUCTED AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 794 PAGES WHICH REVEALS THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, THE SATISFACTION OF AO AS SEC. 68 OF THE ACT IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS/DIRECTORS PARTICIPATING IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REFERRED SUPRA, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE RESPECTIVE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. SINCE THE AFORESAID EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL AS WELL AS REASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS AND THE DOCUMENTS ARE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER AND THE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED OF THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE GROUP COMPANY SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, THE LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE LD. PR. CIT BASED ON AN ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY HIMSELF IN THE SECOND ROUND ATLEAST IS ABLE TO UPSET THE AOS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND HIS DECISION NOT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW IEW TO ACCEPT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT ANY RATE CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW ON LAW OR FACTS. THUS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS OF THE HONBLE APEX/HIGH COURT/TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACTION/VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO AFTER ENQUIRY MADE BY HIM AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CIT IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS DATED URSUANT TO WHICH THE AO HAS REASSESSED THE ASSESSEE AFTER INQUIRY AND ACCEPTED THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND CANNOT BE HELD TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW IN FACTS OR LAW, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ACTION OF ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. SATISFYING HIMSELF ABOUT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM HAS ACCEPTED IT. THUS IT IS NOTED THAT INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRY WAS MADE AND FURTHER IT IS NOT POINTED OUT BY LD. WHAT FURTHER ENQUIRY WAS NEEDED OR HOW THE ENQUIRY MADE BY AO IS WRONG, WITHOUT WHICH IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED SUPRA, THE LD PR CIT CANNOT TERM THE THUS, WE FIND THAT DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DATED 10.06.2016 AND PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT, THE AO IN THE SECOND ROUND HAD SUMMONED THE DIRECTORS OF GROUP COMPANIES AS WELL AS THAT OF ASSESSEE AND EXAMINED THE B OOKS AND THE BANK STATEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THEM TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS ON THEM ABOUT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE AO HAS RECORDED THEIR STATEMENT DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN HE HAS QUESTIONED AND ELICITED ANSWERS ABOUT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS WELL AS THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT ETC. SO, FROM THE AFORESAID ACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE FAULT WITH FOR LACK OF ENQUIRY AND THUS, WE NOTE THAT AO HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AS PER THE DIRECTION OF LD. PR. CIT DATED 10.06.2016 U/S. 263 OF THE ACT (FIRST 263 ORDER) AND FURTHER WE NOTE THAT THE CAUSE NOTICE WHILE EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION COMPLIANCE/FAILURE ON THE PART OF AO IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT DATED 10.06.2016 E ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 20.03.2015. AND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT FOUND FAULT WITH THE ACTION OF THE AO IN GIVING EFFECT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY HIM WHILE PASSING THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER ON 06.2016. THUS, WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CITS ORDER DATED 10.06.2016 (FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER) HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF LD. PR. CIT AND BASED ON THE INQUIRY CONDUCTED AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 794 PAGES WHICH REVEALS THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, THE SATISFACTION OF AO AS ENVISAGED IN SEC. 68 OF THE ACT IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS/DIRECTORS PARTICIPATING IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REFERRED SUPRA, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT ABOUT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE RESPECTIVE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. SINCE THE AFORESAID EXERCISE WAS CARRIED NGS AND THE DOCUMENTS ARE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER AND THE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED OF THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE GROUP COMPANY SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, THE LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN OF SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE LD. PR. CIT BASED ON AN ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY HIMSELF IN THE SECOND ROUND ATLEAST IS ABLE TO RESPECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND HIS DECISION NOT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW IEW TO ACCEPT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT ANY RATE CAN THUS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS OF THE HONBLE APEX/HIGH COURT/TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACTION/VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO AFTER ENQUIRY MADE BY HIM AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CIT IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS DATED URSUANT TO WHICH THE AO HAS REASSESSED THE ASSESSEE AFTER INQUIRY AND ACCEPTED THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND CANNOT BE HELD TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW IN FACTS OR LAW, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ACTION OF THE LD. PR . CIT TO INTERFERE WITH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO, IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 26. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION ON FACT AS WELL AS ON LAW, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT AOS ACTION (REASSESSMENT) PURSUANT LD. PR. CIT DATED 10.06.2016, TO ACCEPT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM AS A POSSIBLE VIEW IN FACTS AND LAW AS PER THE RATIO LAID BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) THE AOS A ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR USURPING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IS ABSENT AND, THEREFORE, THE LD. PR. CIT LACKED JURISDICTIO THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED AND, THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED (SUPRA), WE ARE INCLINED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. PR. CIT DA TED 12.03.2019. THE CASE ON HAND HAS IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THUS, THIS CASE APPLICABLE ON ALL FOURS, TO THE CASE ON HAND. 9. IN THE CASE ON HAND, WE FIND THAT THAT SECTION 143(3) ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF FOLLOWING SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES: M/S. ROHAN FINANCE & SECURITIES LTD. M/S. SWASTIK SECURITIES AND FINANCE LTD M/S. VISUDH MARKETING PVT. LTD. M/S. GOLDLINE COMTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED M/S. GAJBANDAN BARTER PVT. LTD., ASSESSMENT ORDER 25/03/2015 9.1. WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, BY THE DEPARTMENT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED. IT IS SO HELD BY T HE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1) M/S. OMKAR INFRACON (P) LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 896/KOL/2019, ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012- 13, ORDER DT. 18/03/2020 2) AMRITRASHI INFRA PRIVATE LTD. VS. PR. CIT IN ITA NO. 838/KOL/2019, ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 9.2 PERSONS REPRESENTING THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT, AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ON OATH. THE SHARE HAVE ALSO RESPONDED TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT BY FURNISHING THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR. THE INFORMATION FILED BY THE CREDITOR SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 23 . CIT TO INTERFERE WITH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO, IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION ON FACT AS WELL AS ON LAW, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT AOS ACTION (REASSESSMENT) PURSUANT TO THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF LD. PR. CIT DATED 10.06.2016, TO ACCEPT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM AS A POSSIBLE VIEW IN FACTS AND LAW AS PER THE RATIO LAID BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) THE AOS A CTION/REASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR USURPING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IS ABSENT AND, THEREFORE, THE LD. PR. CIT LACKED JURISDICTIO N TO ASSUME SECOND TIME REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED AND, THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED (SUPRA), WE ARE INCLINED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TED 12.03.2019. THE CASE ON HAND HAS IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THUS, THIS CASE APPLICABLE ON ALL FOURS, TO THE CASE ON HAND. IN THE CASE ON HAND, WE FIND THAT THAT SECTION 143(3) ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED BY OF FOLLOWING SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES: - ROHAN FINANCE & SECURITIES LTD. M/S. SWASTIK SECURITIES AND FINANCE LTD . M/S. VISUDH MARKETING PVT. LTD. GOLDLINE COMTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED M/S. GAJBANDAN BARTER PVT. LTD., ASSESSMENT ORDER 25/03/2015 WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE BEEN PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, BY THE DEPARTMENT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED. IT IS SO HELD BY HE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: - M/S. OMKAR INFRACON (P) LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 896/KOL/2019, ASSESSMENT 13, ORDER DT. 18/03/2020 AMRITRASHI INFRA PRIVATE LTD. VS. PR. CIT IN ITA NO. 838/KOL/2019, ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 -13, ORDER DT. 12/08/2020 PERSONS REPRESENTING THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT, AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ON OATH. THE SHARE HAVE ALSO RESPONDED TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT BY FURNISHING THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR. THE INFORMATION FILED BY THE CREDITOR SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES ARE AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. . CIT TO INTERFERE WITH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO, IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION ON FACT AS WELL AS ON LAW, WE ARE OF THE TO THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF LD. PR. CIT DATED 10.06.2016, TO ACCEPT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM AS A POSSIBLE VIEW IN FACTS AND LAW AS PER THE RATIO LAID BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. CTION/REASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR USURPING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IS ABSENT AND, THEREFORE, N TO ASSUME SECOND TIME REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED AND, THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED (SUPRA), WE ARE INCLINED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CASE ON HAND HAS IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THUS, THIS CASE -LAW IS IN THE CASE ON HAND, WE FIND THAT THAT SECTION 143(3) ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED BY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE BEEN PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, BY THE DEPARTMENT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED. IT IS SO HELD BY M/S. OMKAR INFRACON (P) LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 896/KOL/2019, ASSESSMENT AMRITRASHI INFRA PRIVATE LTD. VS. PR. CIT IN ITA NO. 838/KOL/2019, PERSONS REPRESENTING THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT, AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ON OATH. THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE ALSO RESPONDED TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT BY FURNISHING THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR. THE INFORMATION FILED BY THE CREDITOR SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES ARE AS FOLLOWS: - 1) COPY OF I.T. RETURN/ACKNOWLEDGMENT 2) COPY OF ANNUAL AU 3) BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS A/C STATEMENT 4) COPY OF BANK STATEMENT THESE DOCUMENTS PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. 9.3. A PERUSAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD . PR. CIT, ISSUED IN HIS FIRST ORDER DT. ACT AND HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW. IT IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY, NOR A CASE OF INADEQUATE ENQUIRY. A DECISION WAS TAKEN AFTER EXAMINATION OF ALL EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS. SUCH A VIEW CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 10. THE HONEBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PVT. LTD. V CIT (AP) 354 ITR 35 EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND CULLED OUT VARIOUS PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN 24. IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO.LTD. ( 2 SUPRA), BARE READING OF SEC.263 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PREREQUISITE FOR THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER SUOMOTU UNDER IT, IS THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVEN OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE ACT. IT ALSO HELD AT PG 'THE PHRASE 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE' HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE: OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME ONE VIEW WITH WH ICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT THAT WHERE A SUM NOT EARNED SO OFFERING, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTING THE SAME AS SUCH WILL BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. RAMPYARIDEVISARAOGI V. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) AND AGGARWAL V. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)'. 25. IN MAX INDIA LTD. CO.LTD. (2 SUPRA) AND OBSERVED THAT EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT B THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES 24 COPY OF I.T. RETURN/ACKNOWLEDGMENT COPY OF ANNUAL AU DITED ACCOUNTS BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS A/C STATEMENT COPY OF BANK STATEMENT THESE DOCUMENTS PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. A PERUSAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED THE . PR. CIT, ISSUED IN HIS FIRST ORDER DT. 26/12/2016 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW. IT IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY, NOR A CASE OF INADEQUATE ENQUIRY. A DECISION WAS TAKEN AFTER EXAMINATION OF ALL EVIDENCES AND A VIEW CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE THE HONEBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SPECTRA SHARES AND SCRIPS PVT. LTD. V CIT (AP) 354 ITR 35 HAD CONSIDERED A NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS ON THIS ISSUE OF EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN DIFFERENT JUDGMENTS BY THE COURTS MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO.LTD. ( 2 SUPRA), THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A BARE READING OF SEC.263 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PREREQUISITE FOR THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER SUOMOTU UNDER IT, IS THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVEN UE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT IF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SEC.263 (1) OF THE ACT. IT ALSO HELD AT PG -88 AS FOLLOWS: 'THE PHRASE 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE' HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE: OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT THAT WHERE A SUM NOT EARNED BY A PERSON IS ASSESSED AS INCOME IN HIS HANDS ON HIS SO OFFERING, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTING THE SAME AS SUCH WILL BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. RAMPYARIDEVISARAOGI V. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) AND IN SMT. TARA DEVI AGGARWAL V. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)'. MAX INDIA LTD. (3 SUPRA) , REITERATED THE VIEW IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL (2 SUPRA) AND OBSERVED THAT EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT B E TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. A PERUSAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED THE PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW. IT IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY, NOR A CASE OF INADEQUATE ENQUIRY. A DECISION WAS TAKEN AFTER EXAMINATION OF ALL EVIDENCES AND A VIEW CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE SPECTRA SHARES AND SCRIPS HAD CONSIDERED A NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS ON THIS ISSUE OF EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BY THE COURTS AS BELOW : THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A BARE READING OF SEC.263 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PREREQUISITE FOR THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER SUOMOTU UNDER IT, IS THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE IF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SEC.263 (1) OF THE 'THE PHRASE 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE' HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME -TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT BY A PERSON IS ASSESSED AS INCOME IN HIS HANDS ON HIS SO OFFERING, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTING THE SAME AS SUCH WILL BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IN SMT. TARA DEVI MALABAR INDUSTRIAL (2 SUPRA) AND OBSERVED THAT EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN E TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE; OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ON THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, SEC.80HHC(3) AS IT THEN STOOD WAS INTERPRETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE 2005 AMENDMENT WHICH IS CLARIFICATORY AND RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE COMMISSIONER WAS CORREC THE SAID CONTENTION AND HELD THAT WHEN THE COMMISSIONER PASSED HIS ORDER DISAGREEING WITH THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WERE TWO VIEWS ON THE WORD 'PROFITS' IN THAT SECTION; THAT THE SAID SEC THAT DIFFERENT VIEWS EXISTED ON THE DAY WHEN THE COMMISSIONER PASSED HIS ORDER; THAT THE MECHANICS OF THE SECTION HAD BECOME SO COMPLICATED OVER THE YEARS THAT TWO VIEWS WERE INHERENTLY POSSIBLE; AND THEREFORE, THE SUBSEQUENT 2005 EVEN THOUGH RETROSPECTIVE WILL NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISION OF SEC.263. 26. IN VIKAS POLYMERS SUOMOTU REVISION EXERCISABLE BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.263 IS SUPERV ISORY IN NATURE; THAT AN 'ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT' MEANS ONE WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; THAT IF AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MAKES A CERTAIN ASSESSMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE BRANDED AS 'ERRONEOUS' BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUS WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY OR MORE ELABORATELY; THAT THE SECTION DOES NOT VISUALIZE THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THAT OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WHO PASSED THE ORDER UNLESS THE DECISION I LAW; THAT TO INVOKE SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS TO REOPEN A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.263, THE COMMISSIONER MUST GIVE REASONS; THAT A BARE REITERATION BY HIM THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, WILL NOT SUFFICE; THAT THE REASONS MUST BE SUCH AS TO SHOW THAT THE ENHANCEMENT OR MODIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED FOR A FRESH ASSESSMENT WERE CALLED FOR, AND MUST IRRESISTIBLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THUS, WHILE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT CALLED UPON TO WRITE AN ELABORATE JUDGMENT GIVI DISALLOWANCE, DEDUCTION, ETC., IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSIONER NOT TO EXERCISE HIS SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS UNLESS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE REASONS FOR DOING SO; THAT IF A QUERY IS RAISED DURING THE COUR ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS ANSWERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT NEITHER THE QUERY NOR THE ANSWER WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS WOULD NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE CALLED FOR INTERFERENCE AND REVISION. 27. IN SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE A DETAILED REASON IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF DEDUCT MIND BEFORE ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS TO BE SEEN; THAT IF THERE WAS AN INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SEC.263 MERELY B OPINION IN THE MATTER; THAT IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY THAT SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE OPEN; THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAU ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY; THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE TAX WHICH WAS 25 PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE; OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ON THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, SEC.80HHC(3) AS IT THEN STOOD WAS INTERPRETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE 2005 AMENDMENT WHICH IS CLARIFICATORY AND RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE COMMISSIONER WAS CORREC T IN INVOKING SEC.263. BUT THE SUPREME COURT REJECTED THE SAID CONTENTION AND HELD THAT WHEN THE COMMISSIONER PASSED HIS ORDER DISAGREEING WITH THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WERE TWO VIEWS ON THE WORD 'PROFITS' IN THAT SECTION; THAT THE SAID SEC TION WAS AMENDED ELEVEN TIMES; THAT DIFFERENT VIEWS EXISTED ON THE DAY WHEN THE COMMISSIONER PASSED HIS ORDER; THAT THE MECHANICS OF THE SECTION HAD BECOME SO COMPLICATED OVER THE YEARS THAT TWO VIEWS WERE INHERENTLY POSSIBLE; AND THEREFORE, THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT IN 2005 EVEN THOUGH RETROSPECTIVE WILL NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISION OF SEC.263. VIKAS POLYMERS (4 SUPRA), THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE POWER OF SUOMOTU REVISION EXERCISABLE BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.263 ISORY IN NATURE; THAT AN 'ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT' MEANS ONE WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; THAT IF AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MAKES A CERTAIN ASSESSMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE BRANDED AS 'ERRONEOUS' BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUS E, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY OR MORE ELABORATELY; THAT THE SECTION DOES NOT VISUALIZE THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THAT OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WHO PASSED THE ORDER UNLESS THE DECISION I S NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW; THAT TO INVOKE SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS TO REOPEN A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.263, THE COMMISSIONER MUST GIVE REASONS; THAT A BARE REITERATION BY HIM THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, WILL NOT SUFFICE; THAT THE REASONS MUST BE SUCH AS TO SHOW THAT THE ENHANCEMENT OR MODIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED FOR A FRESH ASSESSMENT WERE FOR, AND MUST IRRESISTIBLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THUS, WHILE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT CALLED UPON TO WRITE AN ELABORATE JUDGMENT GIVI NG DETAILED REASONS IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY DISALLOWANCE, DEDUCTION, ETC., IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSIONER NOT TO EXERCISE HIS SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS UNLESS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE REASONS FOR DOING SO; THAT IF A QUERY IS RAISED DURING THE COUR SE OF THE SCRUTINY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS ANSWERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT NEITHER THE QUERY NOR THE ANSWER WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS WOULD NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR INTERFERENCE AND REVISION. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. ( 5 SUPRA), THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE A DETAILED REASON IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF DEDUCT ION, ETC.; THAT WHETHER THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND BEFORE ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS TO BE SEEN; THAT IF THERE WAS AN INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SEC.263 MERELY B ECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER; THAT IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY THAT SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE OPEN; THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAU ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY; THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE TAX WHICH WAS ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE; OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ON THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, SEC.80HHC(3) AS IT THEN STOOD WAS INTERPRETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE 2005 AMENDMENT WHICH IS CLARIFICATORY AND RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE T IN INVOKING SEC.263. BUT THE SUPREME COURT REJECTED THE SAID CONTENTION AND HELD THAT WHEN THE COMMISSIONER PASSED HIS ORDER DISAGREEING WITH THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WERE TWO VIEWS ON THE TION WAS AMENDED ELEVEN TIMES; THAT DIFFERENT VIEWS EXISTED ON THE DAY WHEN THE COMMISSIONER PASSED HIS ORDER; THAT THE MECHANICS OF THE SECTION HAD BECOME SO COMPLICATED OVER THE YEARS THAT AMENDMENT IN 2005 EVEN THOUGH RETROSPECTIVE WILL NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISION OF SEC.263. (4 SUPRA), THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE POWER OF SUOMOTU REVISION EXERCISABLE BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.263 ISORY IN NATURE; THAT AN 'ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT' MEANS ONE WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; THAT IF AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MAKES A CERTAIN ASSESSMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE BRANDED AS 'ERRONEOUS' BY THE E, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY OR MORE ELABORATELY; THAT THE SECTION DOES NOT VISUALIZE THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THAT OF THE INCOME TAX S NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW; THAT TO INVOKE SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS TO REOPEN A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.263, THE COMMISSIONER MUST GIVE REASONS; THAT A BARE REITERATION BY HIM THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, WILL NOT SUFFICE; THAT THE REASONS MUST BE SUCH AS TO SHOW THAT THE ENHANCEMENT OR MODIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED FOR A FRESH ASSESSMENT WERE FOR, AND MUST IRRESISTIBLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THUS, WHILE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT CALLED UPON TO WRITE AN NG DETAILED REASONS IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY DISALLOWANCE, DEDUCTION, ETC., IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSIONER NOT TO EXERCISE HIS SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS UNLESS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE REASONS FOR SE OF THE SCRUTINY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS ANSWERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT NEITHER THE QUERY NOR THE ANSWER WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS ASSESSING OFFICER ( 5 SUPRA), THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE A DETAILED REASON IN RESPECT ION, ETC.; THAT WHETHER THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND BEFORE ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS TO BE SEEN; THAT IF THERE WAS AN INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE ECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER; THAT IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY THAT SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE OPEN; THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAU SE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY; THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE ON AN INCO RRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION, A LESSER TAX THAN WHAT WAS JUST, HAS BEEN IMPOSED. IN THAT CASE, THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER IN THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL POWER COULD NOT HAVE OBJECTED TO THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT EX A MANUFACTURER OF CAR PARTS, IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHERE THE SAID CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY THE LATTER ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHERE THE SAME ACCOUNTING PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE A WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. IT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CALLED FOR EXPLANATION ON THE VERY ITEM FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ITS EXPLANATION. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFIC DID NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD, HIS ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS. THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER TO VARY THAT OPINION AND ASK F FRESH INQUIRY. 28. IN GABRIEL INDIA LTD. CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSIONER AS TO WHETHER AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, MUST BE BASED ON MATERIALS ON THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS CALLED FOR BY HIM RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE COMMISSIONER ACTING IN A REASONABLE MANNER COULD HAVE COME TO SUCH A CONCLUSION, THE VERY INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY HIM WILL BE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IT HELD COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO START FISHING AND ROVING INQUIRIES IN MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED; THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BEGIN FRESH LITIGATION BECAUSE OF NEW VIEWS THEY ENTERTAIN ON FACTS OR NEW VERSIONS WHICH THEY PRESENT AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE INFERENCE OR PROPER INFERENCE EITHER OF THE FACTS DISCLOSED OR THE WEIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE; THAT IF THIS IS PERMITTED, LITIGATION WOULD HAVE NO END EXCEPT WHEN LEGAL INGENUITY IS EXHAUSTE D; THAT TO DO SO IS TO DIVIDE ONE ARGUMENT INTO TWO AND MULTIPLY THE LITIGATION. IT HELD THAT CASES MAY BE VISUALIZED WHERE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WHILE MAKING AN ASSESSMENT EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES INQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ACCEPTING THE ACCOUNT OR BY MAKING SOME ESTIMATE HIMSELF; THAT THE COMMISSIONER, ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, MAY BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE OFFICER CONCERNED WAS ON THE LOWER SIDE AND HE WOULD HAVE ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT A FIGURE HIGHER THAN THE ONE DETERMINED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER; BUT THAT WOULD NOT VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH POWER TO REEXAMINE THE ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINE THE INCOME HIMSELF AT A HIGHER FI THERE MUST BE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD CALLED FOR BY THE COMMISSIONER TO SATISFY HIM PRIMA FACIE THAT THE ORDER IS BOTH ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. OTHERWISE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING UNBRIDLED AND ARBITRARY PO WER TO THE REVISING AUTHORITY TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR REVISION IN EVERY CASE AND START RE ALREADY BEEN CONCLUDED UNDER LAW. 29. IN M.S. RAJU (15 SUPRA), THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE POWER OF THE COMMI SSIONER UNDER SEC.263 (1) IS NOT LIMITED ONLY TO THE MATERIAL WHICH WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THE COMMISSIONER IS ENTITLED TO EXAMINE ANY OTHER RECORDS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THOSE EVENTS WHICH AROSE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. 30. IN RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI REVISIONAL POWERS CANCELLED ASSESSEES ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEA 26 LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT RRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION, A LESSER TAX THAN WHAT WAS JUST, HAS BEEN IMPOSED. IN THAT CASE, THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER IN THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL POWER COULD NOT HAVE OBJECTED TO THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT EX PENDITURE ON TOOLS AND DIES BY THE ASSESSEE, A MANUFACTURER OF CAR PARTS, IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHERE THE SAID CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY THE LATTER ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHERE THE SAME ACCOUNTING PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE A SSESSEE FOR NUMBER OF YEARS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. IT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CALLED FOR EXPLANATION ON THE VERY ITEM FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ITS EXPLANATION. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN HIS ORDER DID NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD, HIS ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS. THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER TO VARY THAT OPINION AND ASK F GABRIEL INDIA LTD. (6 SUPRA), THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT A CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSIONER AS TO WHETHER AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, MUST BE BASED ON MATERIALS ON THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS CALLED FOR BY HIM . IF THERE ARE NO MATERIALS ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE COMMISSIONER ACTING IN A REASONABLE MANNER COULD HAVE COME TO SUCH A CONCLUSION, THE VERY INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY HIM WILL BE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IT HELD COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO START FISHING AND ROVING INQUIRIES IN MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED; THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BEGIN FRESH LITIGATION BECAUSE OF NEW VIEWS THEY ENTERTAIN FACTS OR NEW VERSIONS WHICH THEY PRESENT AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE INFERENCE OR PROPER INFERENCE EITHER OF THE FACTS DISCLOSED OR THE WEIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE; THAT IF THIS IS PERMITTED, LITIGATION WOULD HAVE NO END EXCEPT WHEN LEGAL INGENUITY D; THAT TO DO SO IS TO DIVIDE ONE ARGUMENT INTO TWO AND MULTIPLY THE LITIGATION. IT HELD THAT CASES MAY BE VISUALIZED WHERE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WHILE MAKING AN ASSESSMENT EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES INQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINES THE INCOME EITHER BY ACCEPTING THE ACCOUNT OR BY MAKING SOME ESTIMATE HIMSELF; THAT THE COMMISSIONER, ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, MAY BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE OFFICER CONCERNED WAS ON THE LOWER SIDE AND LEFT TO THE COMMISSIONER HE WOULD HAVE ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT A FIGURE HIGHER THAN THE ONE DETERMINED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER; BUT THAT WOULD NOT VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH POWER TO REEXAMINE THE ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINE THE INCOME HIMSELF AT A HIGHER FI THERE MUST BE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD CALLED FOR BY THE COMMISSIONER TO SATISFY HIM PRIMA FACIE THAT THE ORDER IS BOTH ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. OTHERWISE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING UNBRIDLED AND WER TO THE REVISING AUTHORITY TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR REVISION IN EVERY CASE AND START RE - EXAMINATION AND FRESH INQUIRY IN MATTERS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONCLUDED UNDER LAW. (15 SUPRA), THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE POWER OF THE SSIONER UNDER SEC.263 (1) IS NOT LIMITED ONLY TO THE MATERIAL WHICH WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THE COMMISSIONER IS ENTITLED TO EXAMINE ANY OTHER RECORDS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY HIM AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EVEN THOSE EVENTS WHICH AROSE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI (21 SUPRA), THE COMMISSIONER IN EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL POWERS CANCELLED ASSESSEES ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEA RS 1952 ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT RRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION, A LESSER TAX THAN WHAT WAS JUST, HAS BEEN IMPOSED. IN THAT CASE, THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER IN THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL POWER COULD NOT HAVE OBJECTED TO THE PENDITURE ON TOOLS AND DIES BY THE ASSESSEE, A MANUFACTURER OF CAR PARTS, IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHERE THE SAID CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY THE LATTER ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND SSESSEE FOR NUMBER OF YEARS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. IT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CALLED FOR EXPLANATION ON THE VERY ITEM FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE ER IN HIS ORDER DID NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD, HIS ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS. THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER TO VARY THAT OPINION AND ASK F OR (6 SUPRA), THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT A CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSIONER AS TO WHETHER AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, MUST BE BASED ON MATERIALS ON . IF THERE ARE NO MATERIALS ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE COMMISSIONER ACTING IN A REASONABLE MANNER COULD HAVE COME TO SUCH A CONCLUSION, THE VERY INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY HIM WILL BE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IT HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO START FISHING AND ROVING INQUIRIES IN MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED; THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BEGIN FRESH LITIGATION BECAUSE OF NEW VIEWS THEY ENTERTAIN FACTS OR NEW VERSIONS WHICH THEY PRESENT AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE INFERENCE OR PROPER INFERENCE EITHER OF THE FACTS DISCLOSED OR THE WEIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE; THAT IF THIS IS PERMITTED, LITIGATION WOULD HAVE NO END EXCEPT WHEN LEGAL INGENUITY D; THAT TO DO SO IS TO DIVIDE ONE ARGUMENT INTO TWO AND MULTIPLY THE LITIGATION. IT HELD THAT CASES MAY BE VISUALIZED WHERE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WHILE MAKING AN ASSESSMENT EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES INQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND ANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINES THE INCOME EITHER BY ACCEPTING THE ACCOUNT OR BY MAKING SOME ESTIMATE HIMSELF; THAT THE COMMISSIONER, ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, MAY BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ESTIMATE LEFT TO THE COMMISSIONER HE WOULD HAVE ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT A FIGURE HIGHER THAN THE ONE DETERMINED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER; BUT THAT WOULD NOT VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH POWER TO REEXAMINE THE ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINE THE INCOME HIMSELF AT A HIGHER FI GURE; THERE MUST BE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD CALLED FOR BY THE COMMISSIONER TO SATISFY HIM PRIMA FACIE THAT THE ORDER IS BOTH ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. OTHERWISE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING UNBRIDLED AND WER TO THE REVISING AUTHORITY TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR REVISION IN EXAMINATION AND FRESH INQUIRY IN MATTERS WHICH HAVE (15 SUPRA), THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE POWER OF THE SSIONER UNDER SEC.263 (1) IS NOT LIMITED ONLY TO THE MATERIAL WHICH WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THE COMMISSIONER IS ENTITLED TO EXAMINE ANY OTHER RECORDS WHICH ARE OF EXAMINATION BY HIM AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EVEN (21 SUPRA), THE COMMISSIONER IN EXERCISE OF RS 1952 -1953 TO 1960- 61 BECAUSE HE FOUND THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE INITIAL CAPITAL, THE GIFT RECEIVED AND SALE OF JEWELLERY, THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS ETC., WITHOUT ANY ENQUIRY OR EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER . HE DIRECTED THE IN COME TAX OFFICER TO DO FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER MAKING PROPER ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION IN REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION. THE ASSESSEE COMPLAINED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT THAT NO FAIR OR REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO HER. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THERE OFFICER MADE THE ASSESSMENTS IN UNDUE HURRY; THAT HE HAD PASSED A SHORT STEREO TYPED ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR; THAT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD, THE ORDERS WERE PRE - CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE OF THE COMMISSIONER TO INDICATE THE RESULTS OF THE ENQUIRY MADE BY HIM, AS SHE WOULD HAVE A FULL OPPORTUNITY FOR SHOWING TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WHETHER HE HAD JURISDICTION OR THE INCOME TAX ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH WERE ORIGINALLY PASSED WERE CORRECT OR NOT' 31. FROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES AS TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S.263 OF THE ACT CAN BE CULLED OU A) THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE HAD TO SEC.263 (1) OF THE ACT. B) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVEN WHEN AN INCOME- TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE: OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT C ANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME C) TO INVOKE SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS TO REOPEN A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.263, THE COMMISSI THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, WILL NOT SUFFICE; THAT THE REASONS MUST BE SUCH AS TO SHOW THAT THE AND MUST IRRESI TAX OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THUS, WHILE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT CALLED UPON TO WRITE AN ELABORATE JUDGMENT GIVING DETAILED REASONS DISALLOWANCE, DEDUCTION, ETC., IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSIONER NOT TO EXERCISE HIS SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS UNLESS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE REASONS FOR DOING SO; THAT IF A QUERY IS RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY B ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS ANSWERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT NEITHER THE QUERY NOR THE ANSWER WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS WOULD NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER C ALLED FOR INTERFERENCE AND REVISION. E) THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO START FISHING AND ROVING INQUIRIES IN MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED; THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BEGIN FRESH LITIGATION BECAU THEY ENTERTAIN ON FACTS OR NEW CIRCUMSTANCE; THAT IF THIS IS PERMITTED, LITIGATION WOULD HAVE NO END EXCEPT WHEN LEGAL INGENUITY IS EXHAUSTED F) WHETHER THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND BEFORE ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS TO BE SEE NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SEC.263 MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER; THAT IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY THAT SUCH A COURSE ORDER MADE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE 27 61 BECAUSE HE FOUND THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE INITIAL CAPITAL, THE GIFT RECEIVED AND SALE OF JEWELLERY, THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS ETC., WITHOUT ANY ENQUIRY OR EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER . HE DIRECTED THE COME TAX OFFICER TO DO FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER MAKING PROPER ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION IN REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION. THE ASSESSEE COMPLAINED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT THAT NO FAIR OR REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO HER. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS AMPLE MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER MADE THE ASSESSMENTS IN UNDUE HURRY; THAT HE HAD PASSED A SHORT STEREO TYPED ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR; THAT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD, - JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE; AND NO PREJUDICE WAS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE OF THE COMMISSIONER TO INDICATE THE RESULTS OF THE ENQUIRY MADE BY HIM, AS SHE WOULD HAVE A FULL OPPORTUNITY FOR SHOWING TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WHETHER HE HAD JURISDICTION OR NOT AND WHETHER THE INCOME TAX ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH WERE ORIGINALLY PASSED WERE CORRECT OR NOT' 31. FROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES AS TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S.263 OF THE ACT CAN BE CULLED OU T: A) THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SEC.263 (1) OF THE ACT. B) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVEN UE. FOR EXAMPLE, TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE: OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT ANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. C) TO INVOKE SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS TO REOPEN A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.263, THE COMMISSI ONER MUST GIVE REASONS; THAT A BARE REITERATION BY HIM THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, WILL NOT SUFFICE; THAT THE REASONS MUST BE SUCH AS TO SHOW THAT THE AND MUST IRRESI STIBLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THUS, WHILE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT CALLED UPON TO WRITE AN ELABORATE JUDGMENT GIVING DETAILED REASONS IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY DISALLOWANCE, DEDUCTION, ETC., IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSIONER NOT TO EXERCISE HIS SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS UNLESS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE REASONS FOR DOING SO; THAT IF A QUERY IS RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY B ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS ANSWERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT NEITHER THE QUERY NOR THE ANSWER WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS WOULD NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLED FOR INTERFERENCE AND REVISION. E) THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO START FISHING AND ROVING INQUIRIES IN MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED; THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BEGIN FRESH LITIGATION BECAU SE OF NEW VIEWS THEY ENTERTAIN ON FACTS OR NEW CIRCUMSTANCE; THAT IF THIS IS PERMITTED, LITIGATION WOULD HAVE NO END EXCEPT WHEN LEGAL INGENUITY IS EXHAUSTED F) WHETHER THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND BEFORE ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS TO BE SEE N; THAT IF THERE WAS AN INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SEC.263 MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER; THAT IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY THAT SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE OPEN; THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. 61 BECAUSE HE FOUND THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE INITIAL CAPITAL, THE GIFT RECEIVED AND SALE OF JEWELLERY, THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS ETC., WITHOUT ANY ENQUIRY OR EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER . HE DIRECTED THE COME TAX OFFICER TO DO FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER MAKING PROPER ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION IN REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION. THE ASSESSEE COMPLAINED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT THAT NO FAIR OR REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO HER. THE WAS AMPLE MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER MADE THE ASSESSMENTS IN UNDUE HURRY; THAT HE HAD PASSED A SHORT STEREO TYPED ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR; THAT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD, THE REVENUE; AND NO PREJUDICE WAS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE OF THE COMMISSIONER TO INDICATE THE RESULTS OF THE ENQUIRY MADE BY HIM, AS SHE WOULD HAVE A FULL OPPORTUNITY FOR NOT AND WHETHER THE INCOME TAX ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH WERE ORIGINALLY PASSED 31. FROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES AS TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION A) THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE RECOURSE CANNOT BE B) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UE. FOR EXAMPLE, TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE: OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT ANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. C) TO INVOKE SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS TO REOPEN A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT UNDER ONER MUST GIVE REASONS; THAT A BARE REITERATION BY HIM THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, WILL NOT SUFFICE; THAT THE REASONS MUST BE SUCH AS TO SHOW STIBLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THUS, WHILE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT CALLED UPON TO WRITE AN IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY DISALLOWANCE, DEDUCTION, ETC., IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSIONER NOT TO EXERCISE HIS SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS UNLESS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE REASONS FOR DOING SO; THAT IF A QUERY IS RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS ANSWERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT NEITHER THE QUERY NOR THE ANSWER WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS WOULD NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER E) THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO START FISHING AND ROVING INQUIRIES IN MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED; THAT THE SE OF NEW VIEWS THEY ENTERTAIN ON FACTS OR NEW CIRCUMSTANCE; THAT IF THIS IS PERMITTED, LITIGATION F) WHETHER THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND BEFORE ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN N; THAT IF THERE WAS AN INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SEC.263 MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER; THAT IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF OF ACTION WOULD BE OPEN; THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY; THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MATER SHOW THAT THE TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE ON AN INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION, A LESSER TAX THAN WHAT WAS JUST, HAS BEEN IMPOSED. G) THE POWER OF THE COMM ENTITLED TO EXAMINE ANY OTHER RECORDS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY HIM AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EVEN THOSE EVENTS WHICH AROSE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. 10.1. NOW WE EXAMINE THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (DELHI HIGH COURT ) IT WAS HELD THAT REVISIONARY POWER U/S 263 IS CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX WHEN AN ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, BUT ORDERS WHICH ARE PASSED AFTER INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION ON THE QUESTION/ISSUE ARE NOT PER SE OR NORMALLY TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BECAU AUTHORITY FEELS AND OPINES THAT FURTHER INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION WAS REQUIRED OR DEEPER OR FURTHER SCRUTINY SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN. INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD343 ITR 329 (DELHI) REVENUE DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO APPEAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. S. 263 HAS BEEN ENACTED TO EMPOWER THE CIT TO EXERCISE POWER OF REVISION AND REVISE ANY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF TWO CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED. FI ERRONEOUS AND SECONDLY, IT SHOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE EXPRESSION 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE' IS OF WIDE IMPORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO MERELY LOSS OF TAX. THE TE DEVIATING FROM LAW. THIS EXPRESSION POSTULATES AN ERROR WHICH MAKES AN ORDER UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOTH AN INVESTIGATOR AND AN ADJUDICATOR. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AN ADJUDICATOR DECIDES A QUESTION OR ASPECT AND MAKES A WRONG ASSESSMENT WHICH IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, IT CAN BE CORRECTED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN EXERCISE OF REVISIONARY POWER. AS AN INVESTIGATOR, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INVESTIGATE THE FACTS REQUI RED TO BE EXAMINED AND VERIFIED TO COMPUTE THE TAXABLE INCOME. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILS TO CONDUCT THE SAID INVESTIGATION, HE COMMITS AN ERROR AND THE WORD 'ERRONEOUS' INCLUDES FAILURE TO MAKE THE ENQUIRY. IN SUCH CASES, THE ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS B ECAUSE ENQUIRY OR VERIFICATION HAS NOT BEEN MADE AND NOT BECAUSE A WRONG ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON MERITS THUS, IN CASES OF WRONG OPINION OR FINDING ON MERITS, THE CIT HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION AND HIMSELF DECIDE THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, BY CONDUCT REQUIRED AND NECESSARY, BEFORE THE ORDER UNDER S. 263 IS PASSED. IN SUCH CASES, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL BE ERRONEOUS BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE SAID FINDING MUST BE RECORDED. CIT CAN OFFICER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE FINDINGS RECORDED ARE ERRONEOUS. INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT NOT LACK OF ENQUIRY, AGAIN THE CIT MUST GIVE AND RECORD A FINDING THAT THE ORDER/INQUIRY MADE IS ERRONEOUS. IS CONDUCTED BY THE CIT AND HE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH AND SHOW THE ERROR OR MISTAKE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MAKING THE ORDER UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN SOME CASES POSSIBLY THOUGH RARELY, THE CIT CAN ALSO S DRAWN FROM FACTS ON RECORD PER SE BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRONEOUSLY NOT UNDERTAKEN THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE SAID FINDING MUST BE CLEAR, U A FRESH DECISION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT FURTHER ENQUIRIES WITHOUT A FINDING 28 COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY; THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MATER IAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE ON AN INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION, A LESSER TAX THAN WHAT WAS JUST, HAS BEEN IMPOSED. G) THE POWER OF THE COMM ISSIONER UNDER SEC.263 (1) IS NOT COMMISSIONER IS ENTITLED TO EXAMINE ANY OTHER RECORDS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY HIM AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EVEN THOSE EVENTS WHICH AROSE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (DELHI HIGH COURT ) IT WAS HELD THAT REVISIONARY POWER U/S 263 IS CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX WHEN AN ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ORDERS WHICH ARE PASSED WITHOUT INQUIRY OR INVESTIGA TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, BUT ORDERS WHICH ARE PASSED AFTER INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION ON THE QUESTION/ISSUE ARE NOT PER SE OR NORMALLY TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BECAU SE THE REVISIONARY AUTHORITY FEELS AND OPINES THAT FURTHER INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION WAS REQUIRED OR DEEPER OR FURTHER SCRUTINY SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN. INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD343 ITR 329 (DELHI) REVENUE DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. S. 263 HAS BEEN ENACTED TO EMPOWER THE CIT TO EXERCISE POWER OF REVISION AND REVISE ANY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF TWO CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED. FI RSTLY, THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED SHOULD BE ERRONEOUS AND SECONDLY, IT SHOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE EXPRESSION 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE' IS OF WIDE IMPORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO MERELY LOSS OF TAX. THE TE RM 'ERRONEOUS' MEANS A WRONG/INCORRECT DECISION DEVIATING FROM LAW. THIS EXPRESSION POSTULATES AN ERROR WHICH MAKES AN ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOTH AN INVESTIGATOR AND AN ADJUDICATOR. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS DECIDES A QUESTION OR ASPECT AND MAKES A WRONG ASSESSMENT WHICH IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, IT CAN BE CORRECTED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN EXERCISE OF REVISIONARY POWER. AS AN INVESTIGATOR, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INVESTIGATE THE RED TO BE EXAMINED AND VERIFIED TO COMPUTE THE TAXABLE INCOME. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILS TO CONDUCT THE SAID INVESTIGATION, HE COMMITS AN ERROR AND THE WORD 'ERRONEOUS' INCLUDES FAILURE TO MAKE THE ENQUIRY. IN SUCH CASES, THE ORDER BECOMES ECAUSE ENQUIRY OR VERIFICATION HAS NOT BEEN MADE AND NOT BECAUSE A WRONG ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON MERITS . THUS, IN CASES OF WRONG OPINION OR FINDING ON MERITS, THE CIT HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION AND HIMSELF DECIDE THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, BY CONDUCT ING NECESSARY ENQUIRY, IF REQUIRED AND NECESSARY, BEFORE THE ORDER UNDER S. 263 IS PASSED. IN SUCH CASES, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL BE ERRONEOUS BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE SAID FINDING MUST BE RECORDED. CIT CAN NOT REMAND THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE FINDINGS RECORDED ARE ERRONEOUS. IN CASES WHERE THERE IS INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT NOT LACK OF ENQUIRY, AGAIN THE CIT MUST GIVE AND RECORD A FINDING THAT THE ORDER/INQUIRY MADE IS ERRONEOUS. THIS CAN HAPPEN IF AN ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION IS CONDUCTED BY THE CIT AND HE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH AND SHOW THE ERROR OR MISTAKE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MAKING THE ORDER UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN SOME CASES POSSIBLY THOUGH RARELY, THE CIT CAN ALSO S HOW AND ESTABLISH THAT THE FACTS ON RECORD OR INFERENCES DRAWN FROM FACTS ON RECORD PER SE JUSTIFIED AND MANDATED FURTHER ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRONEOUSLY NOT UNDERTAKEN THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE SAID FINDING MUST BE CLEAR, U NAMBIGUOUS AND NOT DEBATABLE. THE MATTER CANNOT BE REMITTED FOR A FRESH DECISION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT FURTHER ENQUIRIES WITHOUT A FINDING ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN IAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE ON AN INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION, A ISSIONER UNDER SEC.263 (1) IS NOT COMMISSIONER IS ENTITLED TO EXAMINE ANY OTHER RECORDS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY HIM AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EVEN THOSE EVENTS WHICH AROSE THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS . :- IT WAS HELD THAT REVISIONARY POWER U/S 263 IS CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX WHEN AN ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO ORDERS WHICH ARE PASSED WITHOUT INQUIRY OR INVESTIGA TION ARE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, BUT ORDERS WHICH ARE PASSED AFTER INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION ON THE QUESTION/ISSUE ARE NOT PER SE OR NORMALLY TREATED SE THE REVISIONARY AUTHORITY FEELS AND OPINES THAT FURTHER INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION WAS REQUIRED OR DEEPER OR TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. S. 263 HAS BEEN ENACTED TO EMPOWER THE CIT TO EXERCISE POWER OF REVISION AND REVISE ANY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF TWO RSTLY, THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED SHOULD BE ERRONEOUS AND SECONDLY, IT SHOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE EXPRESSION 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE' IS OF WIDE IMPORT AND IS NOT RM 'ERRONEOUS' MEANS A WRONG/INCORRECT DECISION DEVIATING FROM LAW. THIS EXPRESSION POSTULATES AN ERROR WHICH MAKES AN ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOTH AN INVESTIGATOR AND AN ADJUDICATOR. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS DECIDES A QUESTION OR ASPECT AND MAKES A WRONG ASSESSMENT WHICH IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, IT CAN BE CORRECTED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN EXERCISE OF REVISIONARY POWER. AS AN INVESTIGATOR, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INVESTIGATE THE RED TO BE EXAMINED AND VERIFIED TO COMPUTE THE TAXABLE INCOME. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILS TO CONDUCT THE SAID INVESTIGATION, HE COMMITS AN ERROR AND THE WORD 'ERRONEOUS' INCLUDES FAILURE TO MAKE THE ENQUIRY. IN SUCH CASES, THE ORDER BECOMES ECAUSE ENQUIRY OR VERIFICATION HAS NOT BEEN MADE AND NOT BECAUSE A WRONG THUS, IN CASES OF WRONG OPINION OR FINDING ON MERITS, THE CIT HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION ING NECESSARY ENQUIRY, IF REQUIRED AND NECESSARY, BEFORE THE ORDER UNDER S. 263 IS PASSED. IN SUCH CASES, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL BE ERRONEOUS BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW NOT REMAND THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING IN CASES WHERE THERE IS INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT NOT LACK OF ENQUIRY, AGAIN THE CIT MUST GIVE AND RECORD A FINDING THIS CAN HAPPEN IF AN ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION IS CONDUCTED BY THE CIT AND HE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH AND SHOW THE ERROR OR MISTAKE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MAKING THE ORDER UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN SOME CASES POSSIBLY HOW AND ESTABLISH THAT THE FACTS ON RECORD OR INFERENCES JUSTIFIED AND MANDATED FURTHER ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRONEOUSLY NOT UNDERTAKEN THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE SAID THE MATTER CANNOT BE REMITTED FOR A FRESH DECISION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT FURTHER ENQUIRIES WITHOUT A FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. REQUIREMENT WHICH MU SUCH MATTERS, TO REMAND THE MATTER/ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD IMPLY AND MEAN THE CIT HAS NOT EXAMINED AND DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ASPECT/QUESTION. THIS DISTINCTION MUST BE KEPT IN MIND BY THE CIT WHILE EXERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 OF THE ACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE MOST CASES OF ALLEGED 'INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION', IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO HAD CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES AND HAD ACTED AS AN INVESTIGATOR, I ERRONEOUS, WITHOUT CIT CONDUCTING VERIFICATION/INQUIRY. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE OR MAY NOT BE WRONG. CIT CANNOT DIRECT RECONSIDERATION ON THIS GROUND BUT ONLY WHEN THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS. THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. AN ORDER IS NOT ERRONEOUS, UNLESS THE CIT HOLD AND RECORDS REASONS WHY IT IS ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER WILL NOT BECOME ERRONEOUS BECAUSE ON REMIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICE THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. THEREFORE CIT MUST AFTER RECORDING REASONS HOLD THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. THE JURISDICTIONAL PRECONDITION STIPULATED IS THAT THE CIT MUST COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND IS UNSUSTAINABLE I THE MATERIAL WHICH THE CIT CAN RELY INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE RECORD AS IT STANDS AT THE TIME WHEN THE ORDER IN QUESTION WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT ALSO THE RECORD AS IT STANDS AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY THE CIT. N COLLECTING AND RELYING UPON NEW/ADDITIONAL MATERIAL/EVIDENCE TO SHOW AND STATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. J. L. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD. 366 ITR AS REGARD THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CAN BE EXERCISED EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE CASE OF CIT VS. M. M. KHAMBHATWALA WAS NOT APPLICABLE. THE OBSERVATION THAT THE COM MISSIONER CAN EXERCISE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT EVEN IN A CASE WERE THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE WAS A MERE PASSING REMARK WHICH IS AGAIN CONTRARY TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE APEX COURT IN THECASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. & MAX INDIA LTD. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IS ERRONEOUS NOR THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT CASE CAN BE SET ASIDE IN REVISION. IT HAS TO BE SHOWN UNMISTAKABLY THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE ANYTHING SHORT OF THAT WOULD NOT CLOTHE THE CIT WITH JURISDICTION TO EXERCISE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. CIT VS. M. M. KHAMBHATWALA REPORTED IN 198 ITR 144; CIT VS. RALSON INDUSTRIES LTD. REPORTED IN 288 ITR 322 (SC), NOT APPLI CO. LTD. V. CIT REPORTED IN 243 ITR 83, RELIED ON. (PARA 72) AS REGARD THE THIRD QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, IT WAS HELD THAT THE COURT HAS TO START THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS REGULARLY PASSED. THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO ANSWER 17 QUESTIONS AND TO FILE DOCUMENTS IN REGARD THERETO. IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT QUESTIONS RAISED BY HIM DID NOT REQUIRE APPLICATION OF MIND. WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY HIM IN THE ANNEXURE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FORMULATED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO EX FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN HIS INCOME AND TO LEVY APPROPRIATE TAX ON THAT BASIS. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED THAT THE RETURN, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, HE WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO JU THE TOP OF THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HIS ORDER DATED 28 AFFECT ANY RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY CIVIL RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE PREJUDICED. HE WAS AS SUCH UNDER NO OBLIGATION IN LAW SUMMONED AND THEREAFTER THE MATTER WAS HEARD FROM TIME TO TIME COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IS NOT SHOWN BY THE REVENUE TO BE ERRONEOUS AND WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BOTH BY THE TRIBUN PRESUMPTION UNDER CLAUSE (E) OF SECTION 114 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT. A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE, ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID PRESUMPTION, IS THUS CONVERTED INTO A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE FACT THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. 29 THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IS A CONDITION OR REQUIREMENT WHICH MU ST BE SATISFIED FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 OF THE ACT. IN SUCH MATTERS, TO REMAND THE MATTER/ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD IMPLY AND MEAN THE CIT HAS NOT EXAMINED AND DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT HAS ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ASPECT/QUESTION. THIS DISTINCTION MUST BE KEPT IN MIND BY THE CIT WHILE EXERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 OF THE ACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE , EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. MOST CASES OF ALLEGED 'INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION', IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO HAD CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES AND HAD ACTED AS AN INVESTIGATOR, I ERRONEOUS, WITHOUT CIT CONDUCTING VERIFICATION/INQUIRY. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE OR MAY NOT BE WRONG. CIT CANNOT DIRECT RECONSIDERATION ON THIS GROUND BUT ONLY WHEN THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER OF REMIT CANNOT BE PASSED BY THE CIT TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS. THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. AN ORDER IS NOT ERRONEOUS, UNLESS THE CIT HOLD AND RECORDS REASONS WHY IT IS ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER WILL NOT BECOME ERRONEOUS BECAUSE ON REMIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R MAY DECIDE THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. THEREFORE CIT MUST AFTER RECORDING REASONS HOLD THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. THE JURISDICTIONAL PRECONDITION STIPULATED IS THAT THE CIT MUST COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND IS UNSUSTAINABLE I N LAW. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE MATERIAL WHICH THE CIT CAN RELY INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE RECORD AS IT STANDS AT THE TIME WHEN THE ORDER IN QUESTION WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT ALSO THE RECORD AS IT STANDS AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY THE CIT. N OTHING BARS/PROHIBITS THE CIT FROM COLLECTING AND RELYING UPON NEW/ADDITIONAL MATERIAL/EVIDENCE TO SHOW AND STATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. J. L. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD. 366 ITR 593 AS REGARD THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CAN BE EXERCISED EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE CASE OF CIT VS. M. M. KHAMBHATWALA WAS NOT APPLICABLE. THE OBSERVATION THAT THE MISSIONER CAN EXERCISE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT EVEN IN A CASE WERE THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE WAS A MERE PASSING REMARK WHICH IS AGAIN CONTRARY TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE APEX COURT IN THECASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. & MAX INDIA LTD. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IS ERRONEOUS NOR THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT CASE CAN BE SET ASIDE IN REVISION. IT HAS TO BE SHOWN UNMISTAKABLY THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS UNSUSTAINABLE. ANYTHING SHORT OF THAT WOULD NOT CLOTHE THE CIT WITH JURISDICTION TO EXERCISE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. CIT VS. M. M. KHAMBHATWALA REPORTED IN 198 ITR 144; CIT VS. RALSON INDUSTRIES LTD. REPORTED IN 288 ITR 322 (SC), NOT APPLI CABLE; MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT REPORTED IN 243 ITR 83, RELIED ON. AS REGARD THE THIRD QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, IT WAS HELD THAT THE COURT HAS TO START THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS REGULARLY PASSED. THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO ANSWER 17 QUESTIONS AND TO FILE DOCUMENTS IN REGARD THERETO. IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT QUESTIONS RAISED BY HIM DID NOT REQUIRE APPLICATION OF MIND. WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY HIM IN THE ANNEXURE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FORMULATED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO EX AMINE THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN HIS INCOME AND TO LEVY APPROPRIATE TAX ON THAT BASIS. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED THAT THE RETURN, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, HE WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO JU STIFY AS TO WHY WAS HE SATISFIED. ON THE TOP OF THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HIS ORDER DATED 28 TH MARCH, 2008 DID NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ANY RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY CIVIL RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE PREJUDICED. HE WAS AS SUCH UNDER NO OBLIGATION IN LAW TO GIVE REASONS. THE FACT, THAT ALL REQUISITE PAPERS WERE SUMMONED AND THEREAFTER THE MATTER WAS HEARD FROM TIME TO TIME COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IS NOT SHOWN BY THE REVENUE TO BE ERRONEOUS AND WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BOTH BY THE TRIBUN AL AS ALSO BY US TO BE A POSSIBLE VIEW, STRENGTHENS THE PRESUMPTION UNDER CLAUSE (E) OF SECTION 114 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT. A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE, ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID PRESUMPTION, IS THUS CONVERTED INTO A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IS A CONDITION OR ST BE SATISFIED FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 OF THE ACT. IN SUCH MATTERS, TO REMAND THE MATTER/ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD IMPLY AND MEAN THE CIT HAS NOT EXAMINED AND DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT HAS THIS DISTINCTION MUST BE KEPT IN MIND BY THE CIT WHILE EXERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 OF THE ACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO , EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN MOST CASES OF ALLEGED 'INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION', IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO HAD CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES AND HAD ACTED AS AN INVESTIGATOR, I S ERRONEOUS, WITHOUT CIT CONDUCTING VERIFICATION/INQUIRY. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE OR MAY NOT BE WRONG. CIT CANNOT DIRECT RECONSIDERATION ON THIS GROUND BUT ONLY AN ORDER OF REMIT CANNOT BE PASSED BY THE CIT TO ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS. THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. AN ORDER IS NOT ERRONEOUS, UNLESS THE CIT HOLD AND RECORDS REASONS WHY IT IS ERRONEOUS. AN R MAY DECIDE THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. THEREFORE CIT MUST AFTER RECORDING REASONS HOLD THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. THE JURISDICTIONAL PRECONDITION STIPULATED IS THAT THE CIT MUST COME TO THE N LAW. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE MATERIAL WHICH THE CIT CAN RELY INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE RECORD AS IT STANDS AT THE TIME WHEN THE ORDER IN QUESTION WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT ALSO THE RECORD AS IT OTHING BARS/PROHIBITS THE CIT FROM COLLECTING AND RELYING UPON NEW/ADDITIONAL MATERIAL/EVIDENCE TO SHOW AND STATE THAT THE AS REGARD THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CAN BE EXERCISED EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE CASE OF CIT VS. M. M. KHAMBHATWALA WAS NOT APPLICABLE. THE OBSERVATION THAT THE MISSIONER CAN EXERCISE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT EVEN IN A CASE WERE THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE WAS A MERE PASSING REMARK WHICH IS AGAIN CONTRARY TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE APEX COURT IN THECASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. & MAX INDIA LTD. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IS ERRONEOUS NOR THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT CASE CAN BE SET ASIDE IN REVISION. IT R IS UNSUSTAINABLE. ANYTHING SHORT OF THAT WOULD NOT CLOTHE THE CIT WITH JURISDICTION TO EXERCISE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. CIT VS. M. M. KHAMBHATWALA REPORTED IN 198 ITR 144; CIT VS. CABLE; MALABAR INDUSTRIAL AS REGARD THE THIRD QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, IT WAS HELD THAT THE COURT HAS TO START WITH THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS REGULARLY PASSED. THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO ANSWER 17 QUESTIONS AND TO FILE DOCUMENTS IN REGARD THERETO. IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT THE 17 QUESTIONS RAISED BY HIM DID NOT REQUIRE APPLICATION OF MIND. WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY HIM IN THE ANNEXURE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT AMINE THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN HIS INCOME AND TO LEVY APPROPRIATE TAX ON THAT BASIS. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED THAT THE RETURN, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS IN STIFY AS TO WHY WAS HE SATISFIED. ON MARCH, 2008 DID NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ANY RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY CIVIL RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE PREJUDICED. HE WAS TO GIVE REASONS. THE FACT, THAT ALL REQUISITE PAPERS WERE SUMMONED AND THEREAFTER THE MATTER WAS HEARD FROM TIME TO TIME COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IS NOT SHOWN BY THE REVENUE TO BE ERRONEOUS AND WAS ALSO AL AS ALSO BY US TO BE A POSSIBLE VIEW, STRENGTHENS THE PRESUMPTION UNDER CLAUSE (E) OF SECTION 114 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT. A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE, ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID PRESUMPTION, IS THUS CONVERTED INTO A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. MEERUT ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. C.I.T., ITA NO. 116 /COCH/ 2012; CIT VS. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD., 341 ITR 293 (KARNATAKA); S.N. MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. DOSHI VS. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; HINDUSTHAN TIN WORKS LTD. VS. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (DEL), DISTINGUISHED. (PARAS 90-92, 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) A REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF S. 263 SHOWS THAT JURISDICTI IF THE CIT FINDS THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. MERE AUDIT OBJECTION AND MERELY BECAUSE A DIFFERENT VIEW COULD BE TAKEN, WERE NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS THE REVENUE. THE JURISDICTION COULD BE EXERCISED IF THE CIT WAS SATISFIED THAT THE BASIS FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION EXISTED. NO RIGID RULE COULD BE LAID DOWN ABOUT THE SITUATION WHEN THE JURISDICTION CAN BE EXE JURISDICTION WAS CALLED FOR OR NOT, HAS TO BE DECIDED HAVING REGARD TO A GIVEN FACT SITUATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THAT OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION, SO, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO AND NO CASE WAS MADE OUT FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF THE ABOVE CASE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. OMKAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) NECESSARILY HOLD THAT THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONARY POWER BY THE LD. PR. CIT, U/S 263 OF THE ACT, VIDE ORDER DT. 27 /03/2019, IS BAD IN LAW. OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HAS HIS FIRST ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 07/09/2016. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF NON ENQUIRY OR NON- APPLICATION OF MIND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED ALL THE EVIDENCES AND TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW. ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IS LESS THAN THE INCOME DETERMINED IN THE FIRST ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ORDER DOES NOT BECOME ERRONEOUS. IN ADEQUATE ENQUIRY DOES NOT WARR ACT. HENCE WE QUASH THE SAME AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE SD/- [ ABY T. VARKEY ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 16.04.2021 {SC SPS} 30 MEERUT ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. C.I.T., ITA NO. 116 /COCH/ 2012; CIT VS. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD., 341 ITR 293 (KARNATAKA); S.N. MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1990 A. DOSHI VS. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; HINDUSTHAN TIN WORKS LTD. VS. CIT, 275 ITR 43 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) A REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF S. 263 SHOWS THAT JURISDICTI ON THEREUNDER CAN BE EXERCISED IF THE CIT FINDS THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. MERE AUDIT OBJECTION AND MERELY BECAUSE A DIFFERENT VIEW COULD BE TAKEN, WERE NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE JURISDICTION COULD BE EXERCISED IF THE CIT WAS SATISFIED THAT THE BASIS FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION EXISTED. NO RIGID RULE COULD BE LAID DOWN ABOUT THE SITUATION WHEN THE JURISDICTION CAN BE EXE RCISED. WHETHER SATISFACTION OF THE CIT FOR EXERCISING JURISDICTION WAS CALLED FOR OR NOT, HAS TO BE DECIDED HAVING REGARD TO A GIVEN FACT SITUATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THAT OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION, A SUM OF RS. 1 LAKH WAS TO BE RECEIVED FOR SALE OF PERMIT. IF THAT IS SO, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO AND NO CASE WAS MADE OUT FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND SPECIFICALLY APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE M/S. AMRITRASHI INFRA PRIVATE LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF OMKAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY HOLD THAT THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONARY POWER BY THE LD. PR. CIT, U/S 263 OF THE /03/2019, IS BAD IN LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HAS FOLLOWED ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT IN HIS FIRST ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 07/09/2016. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF NON APPLICATION OF MIND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED ALL THE EVIDENCES AND TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW. JUST BECAUSE THE TOTAL INCOME DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IS LESS THAN THE INCOME DETERMINED IN THE FIRST ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ORDER DOES NOT BECOME ERRONEOUS. IN ADEQUATE ENQUIRY DOES NOT WARR ANT INVOCATION OF POWERS U/S 263 OF THE HENCE WE QUASH THE SAME AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE 16 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021. [ J. SUDHAKAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. MEERUT ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. C.I.T., ITA NO. 116 /COCH/ 2012; CIT VS. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD., 341 ITR 293 (KARNATAKA); S.N. MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1990 A. DOSHI VS. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; HINDUSTHAN TIN WORKS LTD. VS. CIT, 275 ITR 43 ON THEREUNDER CAN BE EXERCISED IF THE CIT FINDS THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. MERE AUDIT OBJECTION AND MERELY BECAUSE A DIFFERENT VIEW COULD BE TAKEN, WERE ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE JURISDICTION COULD BE EXERCISED IF THE CIT WAS SATISFIED THAT THE BASIS FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION EXISTED. NO RIGID RULE COULD BE LAID DOWN ABOUT THE SITUATION WHEN RCISED. WHETHER SATISFACTION OF THE CIT FOR EXERCISING JURISDICTION WAS CALLED FOR OR NOT, HAS TO BE DECIDED HAVING REGARD TO A GIVEN FACT SITUATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THAT A SUM OF RS. 1 LAKH WAS TO BE RECEIVED FOR SALE OF PERMIT. IF THAT IS SO, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO AND NO CASE WAS MADE OUT FOR INVOKING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN AND SPECIFICALLY APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE AND IN THE CASE OF M/S. TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY HOLD THAT THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONARY POWER BY THE LD. PR. CIT, U/S 263 OF THE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SECOND ROUND FOLLOWED ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT IN HIS FIRST ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 07/09/2016. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF NON - APPLICATION OF MIND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED ALL THE THE TOTAL INCOME DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IS LESS THAN THE INCOME DETERMINED IN THE FIRST ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ORDER DOES NOT BECOME ANT INVOCATION OF POWERS U/S 263 OF THE SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES SIDDHA GIBSON 1, GIBSON LANE SUITE -213 2 ND FLOOR KOLKATA 700 069 2. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 31 C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 1176/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 NEXTGEN VYAPAAR (P) LTD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES