Enkay Traffin (P) Ltd., Kolkata V. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

ITA 1177/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8612 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: IMOKABA JAMIR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Audit objection; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Fair market value; Assessment record; Non passing of speaking order; Right to appeal; Onus to prove; Revenue expenditure; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 14A; 133(6); 143(1); 113; 43; 48; 13; 153; 22; 131; 68; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA VIRTUAL COURT HEARING (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. GODARA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD.........................................APPELLANT C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES SIDDHA GIBSON 1, GIBSON LANE SUITE 213 2 ND FLOOR KOLKATA 700 069 [PAN : AAACE 5682 P] VS. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA..............................................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI IMOKABA JAMIR, CIT D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 21 ST , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JANUARY 12 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 4, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD. PR. CIT), PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 14/03/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY TRADING IN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS. IT FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON 26/09/2012, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.73,010/-. THE RETURN WAS DULY PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND AN ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 04/03/2015 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER) DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE COMPANY AT RS.7,17,04,500/- INTERALIA MAKING ADDITIONS U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD AS FOLLOWS:- IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND AFORESAID EXPOSITION OF THE LEGAL POSITION, WITH REGARD TO THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, IT CAN BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED FUND IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TO LEGALIZE ITS OWN BLACK MONEY. ACCORDINGLY, THE CREDIT OF RS.7,15,00,000/- IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE INSTANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND CHARGED TO INCOME CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS AND DISCUSSION, SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.7,15,00,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS THE ASSESSEE AS UNACCOUNTED CASH CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 2.1. THE LD. PR. CIT, ISSUED A SHOWCAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 263 OF THE AC 04/08/2016 PROPOSING TO REVIS 263 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, T 09/09/2016, HOLDING THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 04/03/2015 WAS ERRONE OUS, INSOFAR AS, PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ORDER AS THE 1 ST ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT). CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT O PASSED ON 04.03.2015 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 SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION, IDENTITY OF INVE AND ITS GENUINENESS AND ISSUE OF PURCHASE & SALE OF SHARES & ITS VALUATION. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITING 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. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT ON 26/12/2016. IN THIS SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES AS DIRECTE D BY THE LD. PR. CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 09/09/2016 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. NO ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THIS 2 ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2.2. THE LD. PR. CIT ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 16/01/2019 INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT, PROPOSING TO REVISE THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 263 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 26/12/2016. PARA 3 OF THIS SHOWCAUSE NOTICE READS AS FOLLOWS: 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CALLED FOR & VERIFICATION OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE 011 RECORDS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS ERRONEOUS SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: (I) THE A.O PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT CARRYING OU INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY REGARDING IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS & ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SHARE CAPITAL THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE CARRIED OUT AND MERELY ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF T (II) THAT A.O HAS ALSO FAILED TO CARRYOUT DETAILED INVESTIGATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS ON THE VERY ISSUE THAT HOW THEY DECIDED TO INVEST IN SUCH A COMPANY WHICH WAS NEVER KNOWN 2 IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE INSTANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND CHARGED TO INCOME -TAX. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS AND DISCUSSION, SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE DURING THE YEAR IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNACCOUNTED CASH CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS THE LD. PR. CIT, ISSUED A SHOWCAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 263 OF THE AC 04/08/2016 PROPOSING TO REVIS E OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 04/03/2015 U/S THEREAFTER, T HE LD. PR. CIT PASSED AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 09/09/2016, HOLDING THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 04/03/2015 WAS OUS, INSOFAR AS, PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE (HEREINAFTER, REFER TO THIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT). AT PARA 4(V) OF HIS ORDER, HE HELD AS FOLLOWS: CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT O PASSED ON 04.03.2015 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 SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION, IDENTITY OF INVE AND ITS GENUINENESS AND ISSUE OF PURCHASE & SALE OF SHARES & ITS VALUATION. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITING TIME BARRING DATE. THE A.O. MUST PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO MEET NATURAL JUSTICE, EQUITY AND FAIRNESS. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT ON 26/12/2016. IN THIS SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONDUCTED D BY THE LD. PR. CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 09/09/2016 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. NO ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THIS 2 ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 16/01/2019 INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF ACT, PROPOSING TO REVISE THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 263 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 26/12/2016. PARA 3 OF THIS SHOWCAUSE NOTICE READS AS FOLLOWS: 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CALLED FOR & VERIFICATION OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE 011 RECORDS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS ERRONEOUS SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: THE A.O PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT CARRYING OU T DETAILED INVESTIGATION/VERIFICATION/ INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY REGARDING IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS & ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SHARE CAPITAL THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE CARRIED OUT AND MERELY ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF T HE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THAT A.O HAS ALSO FAILED TO CARRYOUT DETAILED INVESTIGATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS ON THE VERY ISSUE THAT HOW THEY DECIDED TO INVEST IN SUCH A COMPANY WHICH WAS NEVER KNOWN ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS AND DISCUSSION, SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF EE DURING THE YEAR IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNACCOUNTED CASH CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS THE LD. PR. CIT, ISSUED A SHOWCAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 263 OF THE AC T ON OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 04/03/2015 U/S HE LD. PR. CIT PASSED AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 09/09/2016, HOLDING THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 04/03/2015 WAS (HEREINAFTER, REFER TO THIS AT PARA 4(V) OF HIS ORDER, HE HELD AS FOLLOWS: - CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED ON 04.03.2015 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 SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION, IDENTITY OF INVE STOR AND ITS GENUINENESS AND ISSUE OF PURCHASE & SALE OF SHARES & ITS VALUATION. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITING TIME BARRING DATE. THE A.O. MUST PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO MEET NATURAL JUSTICE, EQUITY AND FAIRNESS. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT ON 26/12/2016. IN THIS SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONDUCTED D BY THE LD. PR. CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 09/09/2016 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. NO ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THIS 2 ND ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 16/01/2019 INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF ACT, PROPOSING TO REVISE THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 263 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 26/12/2016. PARA 3 OF THIS SHOWCAUSE NOTICE READS AS FOLLOWS: - ON THE BASIS OF THE VERIFICATION OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE 011 RECORDS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS ERRONEOUS SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - T DETAILED INVESTIGATION/VERIFICATION/ INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY REGARDING IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS & ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SHARE CAPITAL THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE HE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THAT A.O HAS ALSO FAILED TO CARRYOUT DETAILED INVESTIGATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS ON THE VERY ISSUE THAT HOW THEY DECIDED TO INVEST IN SUCH A COMPANY WHICH WAS NEVER KNOWN FOR ITS LINE OF BUSINESS AND ALSO THEY INVESTED AT FINANCIAL POSITION. (III) THE A.O FURTHER FAILED TO EXAMINE THE RATIONALE BEHIND RAISING THE SAID SHARE PREMIUM AND ALSO DID NOT VERIFY THE METHOD ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE FOR DETERMINING SUCH ABNORMALLY HUGE PREMIUM SPECIALLY KEEPING IN VIEW THAT PRIMA FACIE THERE WAS NO MATERIAL IN TH E BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE WARRANTING/JUSTIFYING SUCH HUGE PREMIUM. (IV) THE A.O FAILED TO COLLECT THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN ORDER TO REACH A LOGICAL CONCLUSION REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF CONTROLLING INTEREST. (V) THE A.O. FAILED TO EXAMINE ALL TH VERIFICATION TO FIND OUT THE MONEY TRAIL OF THE SHARE CAPITAL. (VI) THE A.O. FAILED TO ADEQUATELY TRACE OUT THE MONEY TRAIL TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF SOURCE OF FUND INVESTED BY SHARE HOLDERS IN T (VII) ON THE WHOLE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRIMA FACIE SUFFERS FROM LACK OF INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRY ON THE AFORESAID ISSUES. 2.2.1. THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DT NOTICE WHEREIN, HE STATED AS FOLLOWS: OU R SUBMISSION IS THAT THE A O HAS INITIATED BOTH TOOLS THAT IS NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 131 TO SEE THE ASPECTS REFERRED TO AND HAS CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS IN DETAILS WHILE FRAMING ORDER. OUR SUBMISSIONS IS THAT THE LD. A O HAS VERY WELL COVERED THIS ISSUE AS WELL BY CATEGORICALLY QUESTIONING THIS ISSUE WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENTS UNDER OATH AND ALL OF THE APPLICANTS HAVE ANSWERED THESE QUE OUR SUBMISSION IS THAT THE LD. A O HAS ALSO PUT UP THIS QUESTION BEFORE DIRECTORS APPEARING IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 131. MOREOVER IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GREEN INFRA, SHARE PREMIUM CAN NOT THREE PRINCIPLES DECIDING A TRANSACTION AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. OUR SUBMISSION IS THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL ISSUED ON LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN CONTROLLING INTEREST AND GENUINENESS OF SHARE CAPITAL ITSELF SIGNIFIES GENUINENESS OF CONTROLLING INTEREST. OUR SUBMISSION IS THAT IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE ORDER THAT THE A O HAS SEEN THE BANK STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY APPLICANTS AND ALSO THE APPLICATION MONEY. OUR SUBMISSION IS THAT THE A O HAS MENTIONED THAT SOURCE OF FUNDS WAS EXPLAINED. OUR SUBMISSION IS THERE WAS NO LACK OF ENQUIRY OR EVEN INADEQUATE INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY IN AS MUCH AS BOTH NOTICES 2.2.2 OTHER LEGAL ARGUMENTS WERE RAISED ON THE VALIDITY OF THE INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT, INCLUDING CONSIDERED ALL THESE SUBMISS 3 FOR ITS LINE OF BUSINESS AND ALSO THEY INVESTED AT HUGE PREMIUM WITHOUT VERIFYING THE THE A.O FURTHER FAILED TO EXAMINE THE RATIONALE BEHIND RAISING THE SAID SHARE PREMIUM AND ALSO DID NOT VERIFY THE METHOD ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE FOR DETERMINING SUCH ABNORMALLY HUGE PREMIUM SPECIALLY KEEPING IN VIEW THAT PRIMA FACIE THERE WAS NO E BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE WARRANTING/JUSTIFYING SUCH HUGE THE A.O FAILED TO COLLECT THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN ORDER TO REACH A LOGICAL CONCLUSION REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF CONTROLLING INTEREST. THE A.O. FAILED TO EXAMINE ALL TH E BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD IN THE COURSE OF VERIFICATION TO FIND OUT THE MONEY TRAIL OF THE SHARE CAPITAL. THE A.O. FAILED TO ADEQUATELY TRACE OUT THE MONEY TRAIL TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF SOURCE OF FUND INVESTED BY SHARE HOLDERS IN T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ON THE WHOLE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26 -12- 2016 PASSED U/S 263/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRIMA FACIE SUFFERS FROM LACK OF INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRY ON THE AFORESAID ISSUES. THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DT . 21/12/2019 REPLYING TO THE ABOVE SHOWCAUSE NOTICE WHEREIN, HE STATED AS FOLLOWS: - R SUBMISSION IS THAT THE A O HAS INITIATED BOTH TOOLS THAT IS NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 131 TO SEE THE ASPECTS REFERRED TO AND HAS CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS IN DETAILS WHILE FRAMING ORDER. OUR SUBMISSIONS IS THAT THE LD. A O HAS VERY WELL COVERED THIS ISSUE AS WELL BY CATEGORICALLY QUESTIONING THIS ISSUE WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENTS UNDER OATH AND ALL OF THE APPLICANTS HAVE ANSWERED THESE QUE STIONS. OUR SUBMISSION IS THAT THE LD. A O HAS ALSO PUT UP THIS QUESTION BEFORE DIRECTORS APPEARING IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 131. MOREOVER IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHARE PREMIUM CAN NOT BE QUESTIONED WHERE THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE BASIC THREE PRINCIPLES DECIDING A TRANSACTION AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE OUR SUBMISSION IS THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL ISSUED ON LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, FOR WHICH CHANGE IN CONTROLLING INTEREST AND GENUINENESS OF SHARE CAPITAL ITSELF SIGNIFIES GENUINENESS OF CONTROLLING INTEREST. OUR SUBMISSION IS THAT IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE ORDER THAT THE A O HAS SEEN THE BANK STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY APPLICANTS AND ALSO THE SOURCE OF THE FUND USED FOR GIVING SHARE OUR SUBMISSION IS THAT THE A O HAS MENTIONED THAT SOURCE OF FUNDS WAS EXPLAINED. OUR SUBMISSION IS THERE WAS NO LACK OF ENQUIRY OR EVEN INADEQUATE INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY IN AS MUCH AS BOTH NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) AND UNDER 131 WERE COMPLIED WITH IN FULL. OTHER LEGAL ARGUMENTS WERE RAISED ON THE VALIDITY OF THE INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT, INCLUDING THE GROUNDS ON LIMITATION. THE LD. PR. CIT, CONSIDERED ALL THESE SUBMISS IONS AND THEREAFTER PASSED AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. HUGE PREMIUM WITHOUT VERIFYING THE THE A.O FURTHER FAILED TO EXAMINE THE RATIONALE BEHIND RAISING THE SAID SHARE PREMIUM AND ALSO DID NOT VERIFY THE METHOD ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE FOR DETERMINING SUCH ABNORMALLY HUGE PREMIUM SPECIALLY KEEPING IN VIEW THAT PRIMA FACIE THERE WAS NO E BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE WARRANTING/JUSTIFYING SUCH HUGE THE A.O FAILED TO COLLECT THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN ORDER TO REACH A LOGICAL CONCLUSION E BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD IN THE COURSE OF THE A.O. FAILED TO ADEQUATELY TRACE OUT THE MONEY TRAIL TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF 2016 PASSED U/S 263/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRIMA FACIE SUFFERS FROM LACK OF INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE 21/12/2019 REPLYING TO THE ABOVE SHOWCAUSE R SUBMISSION IS THAT THE A O HAS INITIATED BOTH TOOLS THAT IS NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 131 TO SEE THE ASPECTS REFERRED TO AND HAS CONSIDERED THE OUR SUBMISSIONS IS THAT THE LD. A O HAS VERY WELL COVERED THIS ISSUE AS WELL BY CATEGORICALLY QUESTIONING THIS ISSUE WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENTS UNDER OATH AND ALL OF THE APPLICANTS OUR SUBMISSION IS THAT THE LD. A O HAS ALSO PUT UP THIS QUESTION BEFORE DIRECTORS APPEARING IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 131. MOREOVER IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF BE QUESTIONED WHERE THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE BASIC THREE PRINCIPLES DECIDING A TRANSACTION AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE OUR SUBMISSION IS THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL ISSUED ON LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, FOR WHICH CHANGE IN CONTROLLING INTEREST AND GENUINENESS OF SHARE CAPITAL ITSELF SIGNIFIES OUR SUBMISSION IS THAT IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE ORDER THAT THE A O HAS SEEN THE BANK SOURCE OF THE FUND USED FOR GIVING SHARE OUR SUBMISSION IS THAT THE A O HAS MENTIONED THAT SOURCE OF FUNDS WAS EXPLAINED. OUR SUBMISSION IS THERE WAS NO LACK OF ENQUIRY OR EVEN INADEQUATE INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY IN UNDER SECTION 133(6) AND UNDER 131 WERE COMPLIED WITH IN FULL. OTHER LEGAL ARGUMENTS WERE RAISED ON THE VALIDITY OF THE INSTITUTION OF LIMITATION. THE LD. PR. CIT, PASSED AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 14/03/2019, REVISING THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 26/12/2016. IN THIS ORDER, AFTER DISCUSSING IN DETAIL, THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE FROM PARA 4 TO PARA 5.4. OF THE ORDER AT PARA 6 1. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUE POINTED OUT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NEEDS VERIFICATION. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERE 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(C LACK OF ENQUIRY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SET ASIDE ON THE ISSUES AS OUTLINED IN PARA 2 ABOVE. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE CO CHOOSE TO RELY UPON FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS OWN CLAIM. THEREAFTER A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY BE PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2019 PASSED U/S 263 BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT IS BARRED BY THE LAW OF LIMITATION AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. (B) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT WAS N 3. (A) FOR THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT ERRED IN EXERCISING THE POWER OF REVISION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIRECTING THE A.O. TO HOLD ANOTHER INVESTIGATION WHEN THE A.O. HAD COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE PRED IN THE PRECEDING ORDER U/S 263 PASSED ON 09.09.2016. (B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PRECEDING GROUNDS, THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT WAS DEBATABLE, AS SUCH, THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO INITIATE ANOT HER PROCEEDINGS U/S 263. 4. FOR THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT REQUISITE ENQUIRIES WERE DONE BY THE A.O. WHILE PASSING ORDER U/S 143(3)/263/143(3) DATED 26.12.2016, WERE OUSTING JURISDICTION TO INVOKE SECTION 263 ONCE AGAIN. 5. FOR THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT WRONGLY HELD THAT AN ORDER PASSED CONSEQUENT TO ORDER U/S 263 IS AUTOMATICALLY IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 6. FOR THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PRESCRIBING AS TO HOW TO CONDUCT THE ENQUIRIES TO ASCERTAIN THE 7. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4 14/03/2019, REVISING THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 26/12/2016. IN THIS ORDER, AFTER DISCUSSING IN DETAIL, THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE FROM PARA ORDER AT PARA 6 THE LD. PR. CIT, HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 1. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUE POINTED OUT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NEEDS VERIFICATION. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERE D THE POSITION OF LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES 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(C ) BELOW SECTION 263 (1) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF ENQUIRY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SET ASIDE ON THE ISSUES AS OUTLINED IN PARA 2 ABOVE. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCES WHICH IT MAY CHOOSE TO RELY UPON FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS OWN CLAIM. THEREAFTER A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY BE PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2019 PASSED U/S 263 BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT IS BARRED BY THE LAW OF LIMITATION AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 263. FOR THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT ERRED IN EXERCISING THE POWER OF REVISION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIRECTING THE A.O. TO HOLD ANOTHER INVESTIGATION WHEN THE A.O. HAD COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE PRED ECESSOR PRINCIPAL CIT, KOLKATA IN THE PRECEDING ORDER U/S 263 PASSED ON 09.09.2016. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PRECEDING GROUNDS, THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT WAS DEBATABLE, AS SUCH, THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO HER PROCEEDINGS U/S 263. 4. FOR THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT REQUISITE ENQUIRIES WERE DONE BY THE A.O. WHILE PASSING ORDER U/S 143(3)/263/143(3) DATED 26.12.2016, WERE OUSTING JURISDICTION TO INVOKE SECTION 263 ONCE AGAIN. FOR THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT WRONGLY HELD THAT AN ORDER PASSED CONSEQUENT TO ORDER U/S 263 IS AUTOMATICALLY IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 6. FOR THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PRESCRIBING AS TO HOW TO CONDUCT THE ENQUIRIES TO ASCERTAIN THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHAREHOLDERS. 7. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. 14/03/2019, REVISING THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 26/12/2016. IN THIS ORDER, AFTER DISCUSSING IN DETAIL, THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE FROM PARA 1. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUE POINTED OUT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NEEDS D THE POSITION OF LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES 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 ) BELOW SECTION 263 (1) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF ENQUIRY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SET ASIDE ON THE ISSUES AS OUTLINED IN PARA 2 ABOVE. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE MPANY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCES WHICH IT MAY CHOOSE TO RELY UPON FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS OWN CLAIM. THEREAFTER A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY BE PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW. US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2019 PASSED U/S 263 BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT IS FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. OT JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 263. FOR THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT ERRED IN EXERCISING THE POWER OF REVISION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIRECTING THE A.O. TO HOLD ANOTHER INVESTIGATION WHEN THE A.O. ECESSOR PRINCIPAL CIT, KOLKATA -4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PRECEDING GROUNDS, THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT WAS DEBATABLE, AS SUCH, THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO 4. FOR THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT REQUISITE ENQUIRIES WERE DONE BY THE A.O. WHILE PASSING ORDER U/S 143(3)/263/143(3) DATED 26.12.2016, FOR THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT WRONGLY HELD THAT AN ORDER PASSED CONSEQUENT TO 6. FOR THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PRESCRIBING AS TO HOW TO CONDUCT IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHAREHOLDERS. 7. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT, LD. PR. CITS ORDER U/S 263 ACT, DT. 14/03/2019 , IS BAD LAW FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD HAD GIVEN A FINDING IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOUT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS, IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF EACH OF THE CREDIT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED BY COMPANY ARE ENCLOSED. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT, IN THE FIRST REVISIONARY ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 09/09/2016. B) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SCRUPULOUSLY FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION LD. PR. CIT, GIVEN IN THE 09/09/2016. EVEN OTHERWISE, ROBUST FINANCIALS AS CAN BE SEEN FROM ANNEXURE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE SHAREHOLDERS AFTER GETTING COGENT REPLIES, ACCEPTED THE SAME. 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 20/12/2016 TO 22/12/2016. DEPOSITION OF EACH OF THESE SHAREHOLDERS AND THAT THIS FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES AND THE DEPOSITION ON RECORD. D) T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN PRO INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES, ONLY AFTER WHICH HE WAS SATISFIED THAT NECESSARY INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, TRANSACTIONS. E) THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT DIRECTORS ON THE ISSUE OF GENUINENESS OF CONTROLLING INTEREST WAS NOT RELEVANT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. PR. CIT IN THE FIRST ROUND HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO 5 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT, LD. PR. CITS ORDER U/S 263 , IS BAD LAW FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: - THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EXAMINED THE NET WORTH OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND HAD GIVEN A FINDING IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOUT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS, IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT AND THE CREDITWORTHIN OF EACH OF THE CREDIT ORS . HE FILED A PAPER BOOK WHEREIN, IN ANNEXURE AND DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED BY EACH OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY ARE ENCLOSED. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SHARE PREMIUM CHARGED DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT, IN THE FIRST REVISIONARY ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 09/09/2016. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SCRUPULOUSLY FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION LD. PR. CIT, GIVEN IN THE FIRST REVISIONARY ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 09/09/2016. 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 FO R INVESTING IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND AFTER GETTING COGENT REPLIES, 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 20/12/2016 TO 22/12/2016. 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. HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN PRO - ACTIVE STEPS IN MAKING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES, ONLY AFTER WHICH HE WAS SATISFIED THAT NECESSARY INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, ARE EXISTING IN THESE THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EX DIRECTORS ON THE ISSUE OF GENUINENESS OF CONTROLLING INTEREST 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 ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT, LD. PR. CITS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE THE NET WORTH OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND HAD GIVEN A FINDING IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOUT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS, OF THE SHARE APPLICANT AND THE CREDITWORTHIN ESS, . HE FILED A PAPER BOOK WHEREIN, IN ANNEXURE -B, EACH OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY ARE ENCLOSED. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO CHARGED AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT, IN THE FIRST REVISIONARY ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SCRUPULOUSLY FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION OF THE U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES HAD B OF THE SUBMISSIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE R 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 DEPOSITION OF EACH OF THESE SHAREHOLDERS AND THAT THIS FACT IS EVIDENT FROM ACTIVE STEPS IN MAKING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES, ONLY AFTER WHICH HE WAS SATISFIED THAT ALL THE ARE EXISTING IN THESE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EX AMINE 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 THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE INV ESTORS AND INVESTIGATION WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTION TO TRACE OUT THE MONEY TRAILS FUNDS. 4.1. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CIT GIVEN IN THE FIRST ROUND OF REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED EACH OF THESE DIRECTIONS AND AFTER CONDUCTING DETAILED ENQUIRIES AND OBTAINING NECESSARY DOCU BE SAID THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THERE WAS ENQUIRY AND HENCE THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS ERRED IN INVOKING HIS POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT . HE RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE SUBMITTED THAT ITS CASE IN QUESTION IS SQUARELY COVERED IN HIS FAVOUR BY THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA B BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VS. PRINC IPAL COMMISSION ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ORDER DT. OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE M NO. 896/KOL/2019; ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 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 LTD. IN ITA NO. 2411/KOL/2017; ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 OTHER DECISIONS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT SHARE PREMIUM CANNOT BE TAXED, EVEN IF IT EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO THE INCOME TAX A THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14. WE WOULD BE CONSIDERING EACH OF THESE DECISIONS AS AND WHEN NECESSARY. 5. THE LD. D/R, SHRI IMOKABA JAMIR OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. PR. CIT OF THE ACT ON 14/03/2019 ASSESSEE . HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH PARA 4 TO PARA 5.1. OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND RELIED ON THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 6 ESTORS AND ALSO TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICANT 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 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 OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED EACH OF THESE DIRECTIONS AND AFTER CONDUCTING DETAILED ENQUIRIES AND OBTAINING NECESSARY DOCU MENTS 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 AND HENCE THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS ERRED IN INVOKING HIS POWERS U/S 263 OF THE . HE RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE -LAW FOR EACH OF THE PROPOSITIONS CITED BY HIM. HE IN QUESTION IS SQUARELY COVERED IN HIS FAVOUR BY THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA B BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AMRITRASHI INFRA P IPAL COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX IN ITA NO. ORDER DT. 12.08.2020 AND THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA A BENCH M /S OMKAR INFRACON PRIVATE VS ITO,WARD- 12(2), KOLKATA NO. 896/KOL/2019; ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, ORDER DT. 18/03/2020 SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WAS QUASHED AS BAD HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KANCHAN PLYWOOD PRODUC LTD. IN ITA NO. 2411/KOL/2017; ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13, ORDER DT. 01/05/2019, OTHER DECISIONS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT SHARE PREMIUM CANNOT BE TAXED, EVEN IF IT EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO THE INCOME TAX A 14. WE WOULD BE CONSIDERING EACH OF THESE DECISIONS AS AND THE LD. D/R, SHRI IMOKABA JAMIR , ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTROVERTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. PR. CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 14/03/2019 HAS DEALT WITH EACH AND EVER Y ARGUMENT MADE BY THE . HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH PARA 4 TO PARA 5.1. OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RELIED ON THE 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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (CENTRAL)-1 V. NRA IRON & STEEL (P.) LTD. ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICANT WHICH AND THAT THERE WAS NOT TO ASCERTAIN THE SOURCE OF 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 OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED EACH OF THESE DIRECTIONS AND AFTER CONDUCTING DETAILED MENTS HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND IT CANNOT LACK OF ENQUIRY OR A CASE OF INADEQUATE AND HENCE THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS ERRED IN INVOKING HIS POWERS U/S 263 OF THE FOR EACH OF THE PROPOSITIONS CITED BY HIM. HE IN QUESTION IS SQUARELY COVERED IN HIS FAVOUR BY THE DECISION OF AMRITRASHI INFRA P RIVATE LTD. ITA NO. 838/KOL/2019 ; AND THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA A BENCH 12(2), KOLKATA IN ITA 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 KANCHAN PLYWOOD PRODUC TS PVT. 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 TO THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO THE INCOME TAX A CT IN 14. WE WOULD BE CONSIDERING EACH OF THESE DECISIONS AS AND , ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTROVERTED THE ARGUMENTS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 Y ARGUMENT MADE BY THE . HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH PARA 4 TO PARA 5.1. OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED HE SPECIFICALLY DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF IRON & STEEL (P.) LTD. REPORTED IN [2019] 103 TAXMANN.COM 48 (SC) THERE IS A HIGHER ONUS PLACED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE OBLIGATION, TO JUSTIFY THE RECEIPT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE 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 FROM THE BENCH, THOUGH NOT LEAVING H ORDERS OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, ON FACTS, AMRITRASHI INFRA P RIVATE LTD. VS. OMKAR INFRACON PRIVATE VS ITO 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 EACH OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES REPRESENTATIVES APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS OATH FROM THEM AND THAT THEY ORDERS PASSED IN THEIR CASES U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, BY THE DEPARTMENT COPIES OF THE FINAL ACCOUNTS, COPIES OF THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THEM BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS AND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY THE DEPARTMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, AND 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 5.1.1. HE O NCE AGAIN RELIED 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 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. 7 [2019] 103 TAXMANN.COM 48 (SC) AND ARGUED THAT I N CASE OF PRIVATE PLACEMENT OF SHARES, THERE IS A HIGHER ONUS PLACED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFY THE RECEIPT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM TO THE SATISFACTION OF 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 FROM THE BENCH, THOUGH NOT LEAVING H IS GROUND, THE LD. D/R COULD NOT DISTINGUISH THE ORDERS OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, ON FACTS, IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, RIVATE LTD. VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (SUPRA) 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 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 EACH OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES REPRESENTATIVES APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED OATH FROM THEM AND THAT THEY FILED ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS INCLUDING ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN THEIR CASES U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, BY THE DEPARTMENT ACCOUNTS, COPIES OF THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THEM BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS AND ALSO EVIDENCE OF SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS ETC. 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 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. NCE AGAIN RELIED 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 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. ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. N CASE OF PRIVATE PLACEMENT OF SHARES, IS UNDER A LEGAL JUSTIFY THE RECEIPT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM TO THE SATISFACTION OF 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 IS GROUND, THE LD. D/R COULD NOT DISTINGUISH THE IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE CASE OF TAX (SUPRA) AND M/S HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT PASSED 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 AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED STATEMENTS ON FILED ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS INCLUDING ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN THEIR CASES U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR CASES, ACCOUNTS, COPIES OF THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THEM , COPIES OF THE EVIDENCE OF SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS ETC. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY 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 -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. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: 7. WE FIND THAT THIS BENCH OF THE TRI IDENTICAL FACTS, IN THE CASE OF HAD PASSED A SECOND ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, 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 F 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 T 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, ASSESSEE 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 (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. W E 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 OU T 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 AND HURR IED 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 MOREOVER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO FOR NOT BOTHERING TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTION OF 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 8 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: - WE FIND THAT THIS BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL, HAS UNDER 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 PRECEDEN TS, 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 F AILED TO ENQUIRE 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 T HE REASSESSMENT /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, ASSESSEE 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; COPY 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. E 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 T 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 IED 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 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 OF THE ASSESSEE OR TO BRING ON RECORD ANYTHING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THUS ACCORDING TO HIM, THE AO WITH A PRE -D ETERMINED MIND HAS SIMPLY JUMPED TO THE 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 26-03- 2015 WAS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES HAS UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND WHERE THE LD. PR. CIT TS, 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 AILED TO ENQUIRE 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 HE REASSESSMENT /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 ASSESSEE 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 E 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 T 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 THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED .FURTHER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT MAINLY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE SHAREHOLDERS. THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO S ORDER IN NOT DISCUSSING THE INFERENCE WAS DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO FOR NOT BOTHERING TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE OR TO BRING ON RECORD ANYTHING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THUS ETERMINED MIND HAS SIMPLY JUMPED TO THE 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 2015 WAS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND, THEREFORE, HE FOUND IT FIT TO ORDER DENOVO ASSESSMENT AND GAVE SPECIFIC DIRECTION IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE. 48. THEREAFTER, THE LD. PR. CIT WAS PLEASED 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 S OF INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITING FOR TIME BAR LIMIT. WITH THE AFORESAID SPECIF HAS SET ASIDE THE FIRST ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26 49. SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND AO WAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT 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 IN RESPECT OF SHARE SHARES IN ASSESSEE- COMPANY. THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF LD. PR CIT (I) TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE; II) TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE INVESTORS; III) AO TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE A IV)THE AO TO EXAMINE THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS; 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 9 NATURAL JUSTICE AND, THEREFORE, HE FOUND IT FIT TO ORDER DENOVO ASSESSMENT AND GAVE SPECIFIC DIRECTION 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 S OURCE 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 SPECIF IC 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 SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT TO CARRY OUT THE FOLLOWINGS ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DE -NOVO ASSESSME NT 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 IN 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 EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF AO TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE A PPLICANTS; IV)THE AO TO EXAMINE THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS; 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 DEVELOPERS U45400WB2011PTC170944 AAECK6810D M/S. LABHDHANIMPEX PVT. LTD. U51909WB2011PTC171524 AACCL2111J M/S. SUBHSREEIMPEX PVT. LTD. U51909WB2011PTC171513 AARCS1845D M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS U51109WB2005PTC102343 AAECM224E ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. NATURAL JUSTICE AND, THEREFORE, HE FOUND IT FIT TO ORDER DENOVO ASSESSMENT AND GAVE SPECIFIC DIRECTION 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 PROPER EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION, ENTITY . (EMPHASIS GIVEN BY US). HE ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT IC DIRECTION, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND AO WAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT NT WHICH MEANS THE SECOND AO IS FREE TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AFRESH, HOWEVER, HE HAS TO DO THE APPLICANTS WHO APPLIED FOR TO AO ARE AS UNDER: TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF IV)THE AO TO EXAMINE THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS; 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 V) THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AT THE EARLIEST WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE TIME 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. FIRST PR. CIT, THE SECOND AO FIRSTLY SU MMONED 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 ACCOUNTS, (III) DETAILS OF DIRECTORS, (IV) THE 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 FACT THE AO HAS ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE REAS 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, AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, DETAILS AND CO 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 DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FURNISHING/DOCUMENTS BEFO 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 SHAREHOLDERS HAVE FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE (I) PAN DE DETAIL, (III) AUDITED ANNUAL REPORT FOR FY 2011 ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR AY 2012 AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTORS WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEES 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 CLICK OF THE MOUSE, COULD HAVE EASILY VER IFIED 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 A ND 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 ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THESE DETAILS SHOW THEIR IDENTITY. 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 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 REG OF LD. CIT, DR, THAT ORDER SHEET MAINTAINED 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 O NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO ALL 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 THE CLEAR ASSERTION OF THE SECOND 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 . 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 MMONED 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 ACCOUNTS, (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 REAS 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, AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, DETAILS AND CO 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 DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FURNISHING/DOCUMENTS BEFO 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 SHAREHOLDERS HAVE FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE (I) PAN DE 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 INVESTORS WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE SSEES 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 CLICK OF THE MOUSE, COULD HAVE IFIED 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 ND 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 ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THESE DETAILS SHOW 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 REG ULARLY PERFORMED. COMING TO THE CONTENTION OF LD. CIT, DR, THAT ORDER SHEET MAINTAINED 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 O RDER HAS CLEARLY ASSERTED THAT HE HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO ALL 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 SECOND 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 M/S. SRISTI SALES PVT. LTD. U51109WB2005PTC102121 AAICS8900L ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AT THE EARLIEST WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE TIME 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 MMONED 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 ACCOUNTS, (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 REAS SESSMENT 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, AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, DETAILS AND CO PY 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 DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FURNISHING/DOCUMENTS BEFO RE 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 SHAREHOLDERS HAVE FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE (I) PAN DE TAILS, (II) CIN 12 (AY 2012 -13), (IV) ITR 13 WHICH THE AO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE VERIFIED THE SAME AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTORS WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE SSEES 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 CLICK OF THE MOUSE, COULD HAVE IFIED 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 ND 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 ALSO EXAMINED BY THE AO ALONG WITH AUDITED ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THESE DETAILS SHOW 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 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 - ULARLY PERFORMED. COMING TO THE CONTENTION OF LD. CIT, DR, THAT ORDER SHEET MAINTAINED 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 RDER HAS CLEARLY ASSERTED THAT HE HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO ALL 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, THE CLEAR ASSERTION OF THE SECOND 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 IN THE ORDER SHEET. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE OR THE SHARE AAICS8900L YES APPLICANTS DOES NOT HAVE 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 THE RE- ASSESSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AO AND NOT THE ORDER 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 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 ASS DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, 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 ISS THEIR REPLIES AND SUPPORTING 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 CAPI NOTE THAT ALL THE SHARE- HOLDERS ARE REGULAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEES. THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED THEIR SATISFACTION IN RESP ECT OF IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND CANNOT BE TERMED AS UNSUSTAINABLE 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 NET WORTH AS PER BALANCE 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. 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. 11 APPLICANTS DOES NOT HAVE 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 ASSESSMENT 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 ASS ESSEE IN THE FIRST ROUND ITSELF HAS FILED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, 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 ISS UED NOTICES TO SHARE- HOLDERS U/S. 133(6) AND AFTER PERUSING THEIR REPLIES AND SUPPORTING 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 CAPI TAL 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 ECT OF IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND CANNOT BE TERMED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW OR FACTS. CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE SHAREHOLDERS (PB - 2) WHICH WAS FILED B EFORE 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 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 M/S. SUBHSREEI MPEX PVT. LTD. PAGE 290 OF PAPER BOOK RS.76,60,93,960 (PAGE 297 PB - 2 M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS - RS.1,54,58,399 ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. APPLICANTS DOES NOT HAVE 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 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 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 ESSEE IN THE FIRST ROUND ITSELF HAS FILED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, 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 THEIR REPLIES AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND THEREAFTER HAVING VERIFIED THEIR VERACITY, THE SECOND AO WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT TO THE NATURE TAL 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 ECT OF IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND CANNOT BE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN EFORE 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 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/ - 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 RS. 50,00,000/ - 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 ASSESSE COMPANIES PURSUANT 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 BE WHICH THEY SUBSCRIBED 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 TH 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 S ASSESSEE WERE FILED BEFORE 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 RES TRANSACTION. BASED ON THE 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 REFERR ABOVE. MOREOVER, THE SECOND 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 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 DISC EXAMINE EACH SHARE SUBSCRIBERS TOTALING THIRTEEN (13) (I) ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 12 TO 37 OF SHARE APPLICANT A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, AND WHICH AACCK0101B 31.03.2012 (IN TOTAL) RS.66,77,47,921/ COMPANY INCLUDING THE SHARE P 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 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 APPLICANTS 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 12 (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 ASSESSE E COMPANY AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES PURSUANT 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 BE FORE THE SECOND AO THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THEY SUBSCRIBED 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 TH E 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 S HAREHOLDERS AS WELL AS THAT OF ASSESSEE WERE FILED BEFORE 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 RES PECT OF GENUINENESS TRANSACTION. BASED ON THE 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 REFERR ABOVE. MOREOVER, THE SECOND 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 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 DISC EXAMINE EACH SHARE SUBSCRIBERS 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 P REMIUM COMES TO RS.1,30,00,000/ 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 AND THE SHARE APPLICATION 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 - 37AND 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 COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. 2 ) 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) E COMPANY AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES PURSUANT 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 FORE THE SECOND AO THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THEY SUBSCRIBED 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 E 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 HAREHOLDERS AS WELL AS THAT OF ASSESSEE WERE FILED BEFORE 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 TRANSACTION. BASED ON THE 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 REFERR ED TO ABOVE. MOREOVER, THE SECOND 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 DISC USS/ 2, IT REVEALS THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE PLACED M/S. K.R. OVERSEAS PVT. LIMITED WHICH IS 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 - REMIUM 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 AND THE SHARE APPLICATION FORM, ITR ACKNOWLEDGMENT, BANK STATEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 37AND THUS WE NOTE THAT 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 IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE 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.1,39,00,000/ APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL FOUR TIMES ON 01.03.20 SUM OF RS. 59,00,000/ LAKH EACH. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB- PAGE 39 TO 77. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF 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 INCOME- TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHAR APPLICANTS HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT 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 U67120WB1 31.3.2012 RS.62,47,11,003 ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,40,00,000/ HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 01.03 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 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 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 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. 13 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 01.03.20 12 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. THERE 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 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 APPLICANT BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHAR APPLICANTS HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NO TICE 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 U67120WB1 995PTCO74397 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 THE TUNE OF RS. 4,40,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 01.03 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 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 79 TO 111 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 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 HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER 6) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. 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 12 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 LAKH EACH. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, AND EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN PAGE 39 TO 77. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS 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 SHAR E COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN TICE 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 INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL PAGE 79 TO 111 IN THE PB -II. 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. 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 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 (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 LAKH S 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 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 FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS T 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 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 S HARE 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. 4,66,00,000/ APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03.2012 RS.4,66,00,000/ INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHAR STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATE MENT. 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 STATEMENT AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE BANKIN G 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 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 14 (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 PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAPCS2068E AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U52190WB2011PTC157073 AND THE NET WOR TH 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 S 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 STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB - PAGE 113 TO 137 IN THE PB. THIS 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 AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS T O 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 HARE 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 MA 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 SHAR E APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, 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 MENT. 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 STATEMENT 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 G 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 GETTI NG THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) (VI) 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 ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. 112 TO 137 , THE IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS TH 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 S 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 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 FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD O 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. 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 MA DE IN AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR E APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, 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 MENT. 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 STATEMENT AND THUS WE 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 G 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 NG 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 U74999WB2012PTC 173749 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS 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 C 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 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 AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE 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 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 COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (VII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN U52190WB2012PTC 173352AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.15,38,94,946/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,49,00,000/ HAS MADE T RS.4,49,00,000/ IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL A 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 T 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 DIS 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) O (VIII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK PAGES DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS1553N AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011PTC170958AND THE 31.3.2012 RS.56,18,93,960/ 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/ 15 U74999WB2012PTC 173749 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 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 C HANNEL ON 29.03.2012 RS.6,55,00,000/ - 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 161 TO 184 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 AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE 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 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 COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 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 173352AND 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 T HE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 30.03.2012 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 A 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 T HE 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 DIS 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) O F THE ACT. (VIII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER 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. 000/ - THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. U74999WB2012PTC 173749 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON PAGE 178) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HANNEL ON 29.03.2012 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 PAGE 161 TO 184 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 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 THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - HAS HAPPENED 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 GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. 2, PAGES 185 TO 206 THE . IT IS A PRIVATE AABCF9036D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U52190WB2012PTC 173352AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON PAGE 200 ) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 30.03.2012 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 A S FINANCIAL 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 HE 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 DIS CHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS 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 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 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 AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ON US TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANN 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. (IX) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECK6810D AND ITS CIN NUMBER I S U45400WB2011 PTC 170944 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY 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 31.0 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 REGULARLYFILED 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 I NCOME 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 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, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURC E 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 NUMBER IS 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 BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.3,80,00,000/ ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATI STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB 16 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. T HIS 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 AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED US 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 CHANN EL. 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 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (IX) WE NOTE 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 S U45400WB2011 PTC 170944 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY 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 31.0 12,54,00,000/ - 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 STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB -PAGE 22 8 TO 261 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLYFILED 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 NCOME 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 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, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE E 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. COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AACCL2111J AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS 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 HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING 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, EXPLANATI ON OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB -PAGE 163- 283 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL HIS 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 AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED US TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE COMPANY AND THE EL. 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 227 TO 261 THE M/S. KAMALDHAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD . IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECK6810D AND ITS CIN S 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 31.0 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 8 TO 261 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLYFILED 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 NCOME 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 FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD 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. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE 2, PAGES 262 TO 283 THE IT IS A PRIVATE COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AACCL2111J AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51909WB2011PTC171524 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 2, PAGE 277) AND INVESTMENT 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 ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ON 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 AN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE T 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. (XI) WE NOTE FR 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/ ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM , BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB REG ULARLY 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 FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST I TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED 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 FURNI SHED 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 AAECM224E AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS 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. 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 3 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 THROU 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 AF TER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. 17 REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AN 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 BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE T HE 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. (XI) WE NOTE FR OM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK- 2 PAGES 284 TO 303 THE 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 INVESTMENT 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. TH ERE 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 285- 303 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT ULARLY 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 FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST I N 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 OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD SHED 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 AAECM224E 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 3 26 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 THROU GH 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 TER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AN D HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS HE 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 284 TO 303 THE 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 297)AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 A SUM OF ERE 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 303 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT ULARLY 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 FINANCIAL 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 OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD SHED 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 LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECM224E AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51109WB2005PTC102343 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 2)AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE 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 - 26 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 - GH 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 - TER 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 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 SHARE APPLICATION, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BA 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, CREDITWORTHIN ESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THUS FROM THE DISCUSSION 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 133(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 T CANNOT BE TERMED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 54. SO, FROM 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 NOT E THAT 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 DIRE 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 GIVING 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 D ATED 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 G ENUINENESS 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 PRO DUCED 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 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. 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 18 (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 02.2012 A SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS SHARE 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 BA NK 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, ESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THUS FROM THE DISCUSSION ABOVE, IT IS NOTED EXCEPT THE LAST TWO INVESTORS THE OTHER ELEVEN (11) SHARE APPLICANTS OUT OF THIRTEEN (13) SHARE - HOLDERS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE -COMPAN Y AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE FROM SECOND AO UNDER SECTION 133(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 T CANNOT BE TERMED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. SO, FROM 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 E THAT 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 DIRE 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 GIVING 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 ATED 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 ENUINENESS 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 DUCED 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 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 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. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW VIEW TO ACCEPT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. 2 PAGES 327 TO 352 THE DETAILS IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY 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 02.2012 A SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS SHARE APPLICATION, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINANCIAL STATEMENT 2, PAGE 328 TO 352. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED NK 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, ESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THUS FROM THE DISCUSSION ABOVE, IT IS NOTED EXCEPT THE LAST TWO INVESTORS THE OTHER ELEVEN (11) SHARE HOLDERS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF Y AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE FROM SECOND AO UNDER SECTION 133(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 T HE AO SO, FROM 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 E THAT 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 DIRE CTION 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 GIVING 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 ATED 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 ENUINENESS 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 DUCED 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 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 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. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW 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 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, 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 TH 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 PO 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 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 W 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) SHOUL 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 R 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 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 T 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 H ENQUIRY AS DIRECTED 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 AN FLOWING FROM SUSPICION 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 IMPUGNE 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 SUMM 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 T 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 N 19 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, HOWEVER, 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 TH E SECOND 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 PO INTED OUT THE ADVERSE FACT, 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 SECOND 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 W RONG DIRECTION OR ON WRONG 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) SHOUL D HIMSELF HAD CONDUCTED AN 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 R ECORDED 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 UNFORTUNATELY 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 THAT LD. SECOND PR. CIT OUGHT NOT T O HAVE INTERFERED WITH THE 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 H ENQUIRY AS DIRECTED 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 AN FLOWING FROM SUSPICION 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 IMPUGNE 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 - 13, THEN THE LD. PR. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR WHICH EVER ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/MATERIALS OR ISSUED SUMM 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 T 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 N ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS WAS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT 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 HOWEVER, 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 E SECOND 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 INTED OUT THE ADVERSE FACT, 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 CONTROVERTED BY THE SECOND 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 RONG DIRECTION OR ON WRONG 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 D HIMSELF HAD CONDUCTED AN 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 ECORDED 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 OF THE ACT, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY 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 O HAVE INTERFERED WITH THE 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 H AS CONDUCTED ENQUIRY AS DIRECTED 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 AN D IS FLOWING FROM SUSPICION 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 IMPUGNE D ORDER WHAT HE MEANT BY 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 SUMM ONS 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 T URN 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 N OT 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 ERRON 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 IMPU WHAT EFFECT 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 O COLLECT THE ADDITIONAL 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 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 NECESSARY TO DECIDE 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 MERGER CANVASSED 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 WI WHICH HE CANNOT DO SINCE THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER/RE 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/INST BY THE 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 THE 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 SECO 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 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 O 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 8. ON SIMILAR FACTS, WHEN THE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WAS EXERCISED SECOND TIME BY THE LD. PR. CIT, OMKAR INFRACON PRIVATE (SUPRA) 13. FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT EVEN THOUGH 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 20 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 ERRON 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 IMPU GNED ORDER AS TO WHAT EFFECT 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 O COLLECT THE ADDITIONAL 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 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 NECESSARY TO DECIDE 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 MERGER CANVASSED 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 WI TH HIS OWN ORDER WHICH HE CANNOT DO SINCE THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER/RE - 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/INST RUCTIONS WERE GIVEN BY THE 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 THE 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 SECO ND 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 THE RE 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 O 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. ON SIMILAR FACTS, 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 ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. 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 ERRON EOUS 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 GNED ORDER AS TO WHAT EFFECT 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 O MISSION TO COLLECT THE ADDITIONAL 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 DECIDE 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 MERGER CANVASSED 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 TH 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 RUCTIONS WERE GIVEN BY THE 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 , AGAIN CANNOT RAKE -UP THE 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, ND 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 RE 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 O F 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 VOID. ON SIMILAR FACTS, WHEN THE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WAS THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE M/S 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 (A) DETAILED INVESTIGATION /VERIFICATION IN THE NAT IDENTIFY, CREDIT WORTHINESS, AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE CARRIED BUT NOT DONE AND MERELY ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE HOWEVER, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THIS ALLEGATION OF LD. 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) 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 O 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 DETA ILED 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 TH 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 ACT 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 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 TA 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 TH E TRANSACTION, SO NOTHING TURNS AROUND IN RESPECT OF THIS FAULT RAISED BY 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 TRANSACTION WHICH 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 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 I VOLUME II 231 PAGES, VOLUME III INDIVIDUAL SHARE HOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND AFTER RECORDING THEIR STATEMENTS, AND AFTER VER 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 CANNOT BE CALLED AN UN- SUSTAINABLE VIEW ON FACTS OR LAW. 21 (A) DETAILED INVESTIGATION /VERIFICATION IN THE NAT URE OF INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY REGARDING 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 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 THEREAFTER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND VERIFIED THE 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 O NE SHAREHOLDER AN INDIVIDUAL 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 ILED 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 TH ESE WERE THE PROMOTERS WHO STARTED 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 ACT IVITIES OF THE BUSINESS OF 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 ALL THE EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS TA KING INTO CONSIDERATION THE 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 E 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 TRANSACTION WHICH 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 I S RUNNING TO THREE (3) VOLUMES. [ 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 VER IFYING THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED 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 ADJUDICATOR AND TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW WHICH SUSTAINABLE VIEW ON FACTS OR LAW. ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. URE OF INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY REGARDING IDENTIFY, CREDIT WORTHINESS, AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE CARRIED 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 OF THE ACT AND VERIFIED THE 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 NE SHAREHOLDER AN INDIVIDUAL 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 ILED INVESTIGATION AS TO 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 ESE WERE THE PROMOTERS WHO STARTED FLY BRICKS AND THE ONLY NEW SHAREHOLDER INDIVIDUAL WAS FATHER OF AN EXISTING DIRECTOR; AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THIS IVITIES OF THE BUSINESS OF 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 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 KING INTO CONSIDERATION THE 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 E 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 (D) THE OTHER FAULT NOTED BY LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO COLLECT RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN 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 S RUNNING TO THREE (3) VOLUMES. [ 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 IFYING THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED 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 AN INVESTIGATOR AND ADJUDICATOR 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 ACCOUNTS FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD. TO THIS ALLEGATION OF LD. PR. CIT, 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 W DURING THE ASSESSMENT 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 OUT BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO TRACE OUT THE MONEY 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 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 ASSE 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 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 RECORDED 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 OTHER THAN THE PROMOTERS, 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 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 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 THA 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 REASSES 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 REASSESS MENT 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 PART OF AO IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT DATED 1 22 (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. CIT, 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 W DURING THE ASSESSMENT 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 OUT 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 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 ASSE SSMENT HAVE NOT BEEN REOPENED THOUGH 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 RECORDED 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 OTHER THAN THE PROMOTERS, 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 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. 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 THA T OF ASSESSEE AND EXAMINED THE BOOKS 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 REASSES SMENT 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 MENT 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 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 1 ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. (E) THE OTHER FAULT TAKEN NOTE BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE ALL BANK TO THIS ALLEGATION OF LD. PR. CIT, 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 W E FIND THAT AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT 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 (F) THE OTHER FAULT POINTED OUT 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 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 SSMENT HAVE NOT BEEN REOPENED THOUGH THERE WAS SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE SAME. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED SUPRA, WE 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 CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND RECORDED 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 PROMOTERS, 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 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 T OF ASSESSEE AND EXAMINED THE BOOKS 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 SMENT 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 MENT 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 PR. CIT WHILE ISSUING THE SHOW 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 1 0.06.2016 WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE 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 T 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 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 SUBSCRIB 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 ASSESS 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 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 REASSESS MENT 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 THAT AOS VIEW 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 10.06.2 016 PURSUANT 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 L D. 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 TO THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF LD. PR. CIT DATED 10.06.2016, TO ACCEPT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM AS A POSSI 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 ACTION/REASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, PRECEDENT FOR USURPING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IS ABSENT AND, THEREFORE, THE LD. PR. CIT LACKED JURISDICTION TO ASSUME SECOND TIME REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THE LEGA FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED (SUPRA), WE ARE INCLINED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. PR. CIT DATED 12.03.2019. 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: 23 WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE 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 T HE 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 SUBSCRIB ERS, 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 ASSESS EE 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 OUT BY THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL AS WELL AS REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS 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 MENT 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 THAT AOS VIEW 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 016 PURSUANT 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 D. PR. 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 POSSI 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 ACTION/REASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, PRECEDENT FOR USURPING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IS ABSENT AND, THEREFORE, THE LD. PR. CIT LACKED JURISDICTION TO ASSUME SECOND TIME REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THE LEGA L ISSUE RAISED AND, THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED (SUPRA), WE ARE INCLINED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. PR. CIT DATED 12.03.2019. IN THE CASE ON HAND, WE FIND THAT THAT SECTION 143(3) ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED BY IN THE CASE OF FOLLOWING SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES: - ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE 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 HE 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 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 ERS, 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 EE 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 AS WELL AS REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS 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 MENT 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 THAT AOS VIEW 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 016 PURSUANT 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 D. PR. 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 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 POSSI BLE 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 ACTION/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 JURISDICTION TO ASSUME SECOND TIME REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF L ISSUE RAISED AND, THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED (SUPRA), WE ARE INCLINED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF IN THE CASE ON HAND, WE FIND THAT THAT SECTION 143(3) ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED BY M/S. GOLDLINE COMTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 25/06/2014 M/S. SWASTIK SECURITIES AND FINANCE LTD., ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 30/03/2015 M/S. VISUDH MARKETING PVT. LTD., ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. M/S. DOVE COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED., ASSESSMENT ORDER 25/03/2014 M/S. GAJBANDAN BARTER PVT. LTD., ASSESSMENT ORDER 25/03/2015 M/S. INDIVAR MARKETING PVT. LTD., ASSESSMENT ORDER 25/03/2015 M/S. DREAM VALLEY BARTER PVT. LTD., ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEN THE ASSESSMENTS 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 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 9.1 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. 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 A 3) BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS A/C STATEMENT 4) 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 DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR . CIT, ISSUED IN HIS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW. IT IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY, NOR A CASE OF INADEQUATE ENQUIRY. DECISION WAS TAKEN AFTER EXAMINATION OF ALL EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS. SUCH A V BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES 24 M/S. GOLDLINE COMTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 25/06/2014 M/S. SWASTIK SECURITIES AND FINANCE LTD., ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 30/03/2015 M/S. VISUDH MARKETING PVT. LTD., ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 20/03/2015 M/S. DOVE COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED., ASSESSMENT ORDER 25/03/2014 M/S. GAJBANDAN BARTER PVT. LTD., ASSESSMENT ORDER 25/03/2015 M/S. INDIVAR MARKETING PVT. LTD., ASSESSMENT ORDER 25/03/2015 M/S. DREAM VALLEY BARTER PVT. LTD., ASSESSMENT ORDER 25/03/2015 WHEN THE ASSESSMENTS 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 THE INFORMATION FILED BY THE CREDITOR SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES ARE AS FOLLOWS: COPY OF I.T. RETURN/ACKNOWLEDGMENT COPY OF ANNUAL A UDITED 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 DIRECTIONS . CIT, ISSUED IN HIS FIRST ORDER DT. 09/09/2016 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. DECISION WAS TAKEN AFTER EXAMINATION OF ALL EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS. SUCH A V BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES T OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. M/S. GOLDLINE COMTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 25/06/2014 M/S. SWASTIK SECURITIES AND FINANCE LTD., ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 30/03/2015 20/03/2015 M/S. DOVE COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED., ASSESSMENT ORDER 25/03/2014 25/03/2015 WHEN THE ASSESSMENTS 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 THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE ALSO RESPONDED TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT BY FURNISHING THE INFORMATION CALLED THE INFORMATION FILED BY THE CREDITOR SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES ARE AS FOLLOWS: - A PERUSAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS ORDER DT. 09/09/2016 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 DOCUMENTS. SUCH A V IEW CANNOT T 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 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 25 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 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 ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. 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 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 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 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 26 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 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 ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. 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 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 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 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 27 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 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 ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. 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 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 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 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. 28 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 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. ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. 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 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 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 THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. REQUIREMENT WHICH MU 29 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 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 ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. 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 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 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, 30 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, ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. 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 FACT THAT THE ORDER 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 LAW LAID THE ABOVE CASE LAW AND SPECIFICALLY APPLYING M/S. AMRITRASHI INFRA P RIVATE LTD. 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 ACT, 14/03/2019, IS BAD IN LAW. 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/- [ S. S. GODARA ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 12.01.2021 {SC SPS} 31 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 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 LAW LAID THE ABOVE CASE LAW AND SPECIFICALLY APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RIVATE LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF M/S. OMKAR INFRASTRUCTUR 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 ACT, IN LAW. HENCE WE QUASH THE SAME AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE 12 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021. [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. 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 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 THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. OMKAR INFRASTRUCTUR E 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 ACT, VIDE ORDER DT. IN LAW. HENCE WE QUASH THE SAME AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES 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. 32 C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 1177/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES