ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s Dignity Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1882/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3752 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2017
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. PAGE | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOLKATA BEFORE: SHRI P. M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA APPELLANT VS M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT [PAN:AADCD4190J] FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI DR. A.K. NAYAK, CIT-DR FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI MIRAJ D. SHAH, FCA DATE OF HEARING : 19.06.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.08.2019 ORDER SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.06.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-23, KOLKATA [CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS AS TO WHETHER THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ON HAND IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING TOTAL OF RS.2,624/-. NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ONLY SUBMISSIONS/DOCUMENTS WERE FILED. ON AN EXAMINATION OF SUCH DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ISSUED SHARES TO DIFFERENT PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES AGAINST HIGH PREMIUM. I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. PAGE | 2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NO TRACK RECORD OR ASSET BASE AND ZERO BALANCE SHEET WITH NO VISIBLE FUTURE PROSPECT. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE SAME, THE SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS DIRECTORS OF INVESTING COMPANIES. ACCORDING TO HIM, NO COMPLIANCES WHATSOEVER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE NOR BY THE DIRECTORS OF INVESTING COMPANIES. FOR NON-COMPLIANCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM TO AN EXTENT OF RS.9,15,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 25/03/2015 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 4. HAVING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING LIST OF ALLOTTEES, FORM 2, FORM 5, COPY OF INVESTMENT WITH ADDRESS PARTICULARS AND PAN. FURTHER COPY OF STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS A/C, COPY OF LETTER FILED AGAINST NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) AND SUMMONS U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE FILED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF INVESTOR COMPANIES SUCH AS BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT & LOSS A/C, NAME AND ADDRESS, PAN OF DIRECTORS, SOURCES OF FUND AND MODE OF PAYMENT BY THE INVESTOR COMPANIES, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT, COPY OF ITR FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, COPY OF ALLOTMENT LETTERS, COPIES OF THE SHARE APPLICATION FORM AND COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION AS NON-BANKING FINANCIAL COMPANY RELATING TO SIX INVESTOR COMPANIES AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE MATERIAL/DOCUMENTS ABOVE WHICH WERE NOT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(A) SOUGHT REMAND REPORT FROM ASSESSING OFFICER. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND NO ADVERSE I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. PAGE | 3 FINDING BEEN REPORTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT FOR THE REASON AS UNDER: THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBMISSION OF AR AND REMAND REPORT WAS DULY CONSIDERED. ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED SHARE CAPITAL SHARE PREMIUM TO BE OF RS.9,15,00,000/- IN THIS ABSENCE OF PRESENCE OF DIRECTORS OF INVESTOR. COMPANIES AND APPELLANT COMPANY. SINCE IT WAS AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, AO WAS GRANTED OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE AND INVESTIGATE THE PAPERS SUBMITTED OF INVESTORS COMPANIES AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A. IN THIS REPORT AO SUBMITTED A REPORT AND CONCLUDING PARA IS REPRODUCED AS BELOW:- 'IN THE COURSE OF THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS THE INVESTOR COMPANIES WERE ISSUED SUMMON, THE PERSONALLY APPEARED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, BANK STATEMENT AND OTHER DETAILS/DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. THESE HAVE BEEN VERIFIED WITHOUT NOTICING ANY DISCREPANCIES. ONE OF THE REASON FOR ADDITION WAS FAILURE TO COMPLY SUMMON. IN THIS REGARD DIRECTORS SAID THAT THEY PERSONALLY APPEARED IN TIME BUT STATEMENT WAS NOT RECORDED AS AO WAS BUSY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED THAT THE IDENTITIES OF EACH OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES HAVE BEEN PROVED IN AS MUCH AS: I) THESE INVESTOR COMPANIES ARE REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND ARE ON THE RECORDS OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES FUNCTIONING UNDER THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, AS WELL AS NON-BANKING RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. II) EACH OF THE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES ARE INDEPENDENTLY AND REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX AND THE PAN AND ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WERE FURNISHED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. III) EACH OF THE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES MAINTAINED THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS AND COPIES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS STATEMENT, FROM WHICH THEY MADE PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO SUBSCRIBE THE SHARES ISSUED TO THEM AT A PREMIUM, WERE FURNISHED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. I HAVE VERIFIED THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH PROVES THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES HAVE ALSO BEEN PROVED IN MUCH AS THE NET WORTH OF EACH OF THE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES, FAR EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THEM IN APPELLANT COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE WRITTEN DECLARATION OF EACH OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES ADMITTED TO HIVE SUBSCRIBED TO THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHOWING THE SOURCE OF FUND IN EACH CASE WITH NAME PAN, ADDRESS PARTICULARS OF THE ENTITLES FROM WHERE THE INVESTOR COMPANIES RECEIVED FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE AND THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. IN MOST OF THE CASES THE SOURCE OF FUND WERE FOUND TO BE SALE OF INVESTMENT, REPAYMENT OF UNSECURED LOAN, ADVANCES RECEIVED AS WELL AS RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. I HAVE VERIFIED THE SAID STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS AS FURNISHED BY THE INVESTOR COMPANIES WITH THE STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT OF RESPECTIVE COMPANIES AND NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSMENT RECORD CONTAINS INFORMATION ABOUT SOURCE OF FUND IN EACH CASE WITH NAME, PAN, ADDRESS PARTICULARS OF THE ENTITIES FROM WHERE THE PAYMENT RECEIVED. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS REQUIRED HAS BEEN PREPARED AND AUDITED BY QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS. THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AS WELL AS THE PAPER BOOKS ALSO CONTAINS COPIES OF STATEMENTS OF BANK ACCOUNTS RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH CITY UNION BANK LTD. KOLKATA-700001 VERIFIED WITH RELEVANT ENTRIES RECORDED IN THE STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY INVESTOR COMPANIES. IN FACT NOTICES/SUMMONS WERE ISSUED I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. PAGE | 4 TO INVESTOR COMPANIES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WHERE SOURCES OF FUND HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED. HOWEVER, ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE GROUND OF NONE APPEARANCE OF DIRECTORS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS INVESTOR COMPANIES AGAINST SUMMON ISSUED U/S 131 AND ON THE BASIS OF PRINCIPAL OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY. I HAVE NOW VERIFIED THE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN REMAND PROCEEDING AND IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND SATISFIED WITH THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDIT ENTRIES. ON EXAMINATION OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, PAPER BOOKS AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS STATED ABOVE NO INFIRMITY IN THE MATTER RELATED TO STANDARD MODE OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTION, CREDITWORTHINESS OF INVESTORS, SOURCE OF FUND AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION IS FOUND. THE OBSERVATIONS OF A.O IN REMAND REPORT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF INVESTOR COMPANIES. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT REVENUE BEFORE US CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF CIT(A). 6. SHRI DR. ABANI KANTA NAYAK, THE LD. CIT(DR) SUBMITS THAT THE MATTER INVOLVES AN ADDITION OF SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.9,15,02,620 CRORES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT BY THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER, THE MATTER ON BEING REMANDED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL), THE AO SUBMITTED A REPORT IN WHICH HE FOUND NO INFIRMITY WITH RESPECT TO THE CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE SOURCE AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. BASED ON THE SAID REPORT, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION BESIDES QUOTING RELEVANT CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF HIS ACTION. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) HAS NOT MENTIONED OR ENUMERATED WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH HE ADMITTED. HE HAS NOT PASSED ANY ORDER OF ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED AO AS REQUIRED AS PER THE MANDATE OF THE LAW AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 250(4) READ WITH RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) FURTHER HAS NOT MENTIONED IN HIS REMAND REPORT WHAT IS THE INVESTIGATION TO BE CARRIED OUT BY THE LEARNED AO OR POINTS OF ENQUIRY TO BE MADE. ON THE CONTRARY, BY NOT REMANDING THE MATTER ON SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES OR POINTS OF ENQUIRY HE WANTED TO CARRY I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. PAGE | 5 OUT THOROUGH THE AO, HE REMANDED THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT GIVING A 2 ND INNINGS TO THE RESPONDENT. 7. THE LEARNED AO ALSO HAS NOT MENTIONED WHAT IS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HE MERELY TOOK STATEMENTS ON OATH FROM THE DIRECTORS OF 2 OUT OF THE TOTAL 6 CREDITORS OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE COMPANY. THERE IS NO MODICUM OF ENQUIRY WORTH ITS NAME OTHER THAN SUCH SWORN STATEMENTS. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED AO TOOK A COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY VIEW AND REACHED A DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE CONCLUSION TO ONE THAT WAS ARRIVED AT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS ALSO NOTEWORTHY TO MENTION THAT THE REMAND REPORT WAS NOT ROUTED THROUGH HIS IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR, THE ADDITIONAL CIT, BUT DIRECTLY SENT TO THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL), WHICH IS AGAINST THE PROCEDURAL NORMS AND REFERRED TO SCRUTINY REPORT FOR READY REFERENCE. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) TOO MERELY RELIED ON THE REMAND REPORT WHICH IS NOTHING BUT A REPORT ONLY AND NOT AN ORDER. THE REMAND REPORT CAN BE A CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR IN REACHING THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION BUT CANNOT BE A BINDING ORDER UPON THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL WHO IS SUPPOSED TO ADJUDICATE THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND LAW. THUS, WHEN THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL WAS ITSELF VERY MUCH SPEAKING WITH RESPECT TO NON-DISCHARGING OF ONUS CREATED BY THE STATUTE ON THE RESPONDENT IN PROVING THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF CREDIT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND THE RELEVANT PREMIUM, MERE RELIANCE BY THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL IN REACHING A CONCLUSION IS NOT BASED ON FACTS AND LAW AND IS LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE. 8. SHRI DR. ABANI KANTA NAYAK SUBMITS THAT IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE COPY OF THE ORDER-SHEET NOTING IN THE CASE RECORDS PLACED ON RECORD THAT THE AO WAS VERY PERFUNCTORY IN HIS INVESTIGATION IN THE SENSE THAT HE NOTES THAT STATEMENT OF SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR GOYAL, DIRECTOR OF THE I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. PAGE | 6 ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS RECORDED WHEREAS IN FACT HE TOOK A STATEMENT FROM MR. PANKAJ MARDA AND MR. PRADEEP KUMAR AGARWAL WHO ARE DIRECTORS OF M/S. ABM FINELEASE PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S. VIRAT LEASING LTD RESPECTIVELY. THE LEARNED AO DID NOT TAKE ANY STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER CREDITORS AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHEREAS SUMMONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO ALL THESE PERSONS IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS CAN BE EVIDENCED FROM THE CASE RECORD. IT IS ALSO NOTEWORTHY TO MENTION HERE THAT MR PANKAJ MARDA WAS LISTED AS A DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHEREAS HE HAS GIVEN THE STATEMENT NOW AS THE DIRECTOR OF ONE OF THE CREDITOR COMPANIES. THE LEARNED AO DID NOT ASK ANY QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO SUCH AMBIGUITY. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT EVEN THE BANK STATEMENTS OF ALL THE 6 CREDITORS HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED. 9. SHRI DR. ABANI KANTA NAYAK SUBMITS THAT IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT IN 2 OF THE 6 CREDITORS, IN WHOSE CASE, BANK STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED, AS USUAL IN SUCH CASES, EQUAL AMOUNTS OF CREDITS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE SAME DAY OR FEW DAYS JUST PRIOR TO THE DEBIT IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT'S SHARE SUBSCRIPTION. ALL THE CREDITORS HAVE RESERVE ONLY BY WAY OF SHARE PREMIUM AND NO OTHER RESERVE WHERE FROM SUCH SUBSCRIPTION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE. ALL OF THEM HAVE MEAGRE INCOME, ABNORMALLY LOW PROFIT WHICH MAKES IT UNFATHOMABLE AS TO HOW SUCH COMPANIES COULD GO FOR SUBSCRIBING SUCH HIGH PREMIUM. FINALLY SHRI DR. ABANI KANTA NAYAK SUBMITS THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL, IGNORING ALL THE FACTS UNI-DIMENSIONALLY RELIED ON THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AO, WHICH IN TURN WAS PERFUNCTORY IN ITS CONCLUSION BY LACKING ANY INVESTIGATIONS WORTH THE NAME. HE THEREFORE, MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN REACHING A FAULTY CONCLUSION NOT BASED ON LAW. BY NOT FOLLOWING RULE 46A, THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL OPENED THE ENTIRE VISTAS OF ASSESSMENT BY GRANTING A 2 ND INNINGS TO THE RESPONDENT. THIS IS AGAINST THE VERY SPIRIT OF THE AMENDMENT MADE TO CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION 1 OF SECTION 251 I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. PAGE | 7 AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF THE CHIVEETTIL SEKHARAN NAMBIAR VS CHERUVAZHCHERI KISHAKKEKKAR (AIR 1992 KER 303). FURTHER, SHRI ABANI KANTA NAYAK PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF THE CIT VS. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 375 ITR 373 (DELHI), IN THE CASE OF HAJI LAL MOHD. BIRI WORKS V. CIT REPORTED IN [2005] 145 TAXMAN 578 (ALL.), IN THE CASE OF SMT. B. JAYALAKSHMI V. ACIT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS REPORTED IN [2018] 96 TAXMANN.COM 486(MADRAS) AND PRAYED TO ALLOW THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT-REVENUE. 10. IN REPLY, THE LD. AR, SHRI MIRAJ D. SHAH SUBMITS THAT NO GROUND ON VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES WAS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT REVENUE AND THE LD. DR SHOULD BE RESTRAINED FROM MAKING SUBMISSIONS OF THE VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF RULES. HE SUBMITS THAT MERE MENTIONING OF WRONG SECTION DOES NOT VITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE POWER U/S 251 OF THE ACT IS A STATUTORY POWER AVAILABLE TO CIT(A) IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ALL THE DIRECTORS OF SUBSCRIBER INVESTING COMPANIES WERE SUMMONED AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED. FURTHER IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT, ALL THE DETAILS WERE FILED AND EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LD. AR REFERRED TO PAGE NO.80 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. FURTHER HE REFERRED TO PAGE NO.488 TO 489 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS NO ADVERSE REMARK AGAINST THE DIRECTORS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SUBSCRIBER INVESTING COMPANIES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FULLY EXAMINED ALL THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND FOUND SATISFIED WITH THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDIT ENTRIES. FURTHER HE SUBMITS THAT WHEN THERE IS NO ADVERSE REMARK AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES, THE LD. DR I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. PAGE | 8 MAKING THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONDUCT THE VERIFICATION OF DETAILS OF SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES ARE AWAY FROM TRUTH AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO FILE THIS APPEAL AGAINST HIS OWN FINDINGS AND PRAYED TO DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 11. HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR, PRIMARILY GOES TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT VERIFY THE DETAILS OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AND SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES AND IT WAS PERFUNCTORY IN HIS INVESTIGATION. IT IS THE DUTY OF CIT(A) TO EXAMINE THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) CANNOT ADMIT THE REMAND REPORT AS IT IS. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THE LD. DR REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF C.S. NAMBIAR VS. CHERUVAZHCHERI KISHAKKEKKAR OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED IN AIR 1992 KER 303, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THIS JUDGMENT IS AS UNDER: 5. IN THIS APPEAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR CONTESTING DEFENDANTS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT NO GROUND HAVE BEEN MADE OUT FOR REMANDING THE MATTER. THOUGH THERE IS NO SPECIFIC PLEA IN THE PLAINT THAT THE B SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGED TO THE TARWAD, THE PLAINT PROCEEDS ON THE BASIS THAT THE PROPERTY BELONGED TO THE TARWAD CONSISTING OF PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS AND IT IS ON THAT BASIS, THE RELIEF OF PARTITION WAS SOUGHT. THOSE DEFENDANTS WHO SUPPORTED THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM FOR PARTITION HAVE STATED IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT THE PROPERTY BELONGED TO THE TARWAD. THE ENTIRE FOCUS WAS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS A TARWAD PROPERTY OR WHETHER 13TH DEFENDANT OBTAINED THE LEASE HOLD RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY FOR HIMSELF. ALL THE PARTIES JOINED ISSUE ON THIS AND ADDUCED EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, THE TRIAL COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PLEA RAISED BY THE PLAINTIFF THAT THE PROPERTY BELONGED TO THE TARWAD. THE APPELLATE COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY AVERRED THAT THE PROPERTY IS TARWAD PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE PLAINT PROCEEDS ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS TARWAD PROPERTY. THE SUPPORTING DEFENDANTS HAVE SPECIFICALLY PLEADED THAT THE PROPERTY BELONGED TO MARUMAKKATHAYA FAMILY CONSISTING OF PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS. THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT IS NOT BASED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO RAISE A SPECIFIC PLEA THAT THE PROPERTY BELONGED TO THE TARWAD. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE TRIAL COURT WENT INTO THE QUESTION OF FAMILY CHARACTER OF PROPERTY AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIALS ON RECORD THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF THAT THE PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGED TO THE THAVAZHI. AS INDICATED ABOVE AN ISSUE WAS FRAMED ON THE QUESTION WHETHER PROPERTY IS A TARWAD PROPERTY OR NOT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE APPELLATE COURT TO REMAND THE MATTER TO ENABLE AN AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT. SUPREME COURT HAS POINTED OUT IN NEDUNURI KAMESWARAMMA V. SAMPATI SUBBA RAO, AIR 1963 SC 884 THAT WHEN EACH PARTY WENT TO TRIAL FULLY KNOWING THE RIVAL CASE AND LED ALL THE EVIDENCE NOT ONLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS OWN CONTENTIONS BUT IN REFUTATION OF THOSE OF THE OTHER SIDE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ABSENCE OF AN ISSUE WAS FATAL TO THE CASE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, NOT ONLY THE PARTIES WENT TO TRIAL FULLY KNOWING THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND LED EVIDENCE, BUT A SPECIFIC ISSUE IN REGARD TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS A I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. PAGE | 9 TARWAD OR NOT WAS ALSO FRAMED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS HARDLY ANY JUSTIFICATION TO REMAND THEM MATTER TO ENABLE THE PARTY TO AMEND THE PLAINT. IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT THE PROPERTY IS A TARWAD PROPERTY IN THE PLAINT, ANY PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE PLAINTIFF OR THE DEFENDANTS WHO SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFFS. THEREFORE, IN MY VIEW, THE ORDER OF REMAND PASSED BY THE LOWER COURT IS FULLY UNJUSTIFIED. AS POINTED OUT BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL 1610 OF 1968 IN INDIA ARMY AND POLICE EQUIPMENT V. KANODIA BROTHERS, 1968 KER LT SN 19, A FIRST APPEAL IS A REHEARING AND IF THE PARTIES HAVE LED ALL THE EVIDENCE THEY DESIRED, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT CO GIVE ITS OWN CONCLUSIONS UPON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT. IF A TRIAL COURT DOES NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTAND THE PLEADINGS, IT IS FOR THE APPELLATE COURT TO REVERSE THE FINDINGS AND GIVE ITS OWN FINDINGS; AGAIN, IF AN ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN A VERY PERFUNCTORY MANNER. BUT POWER TO ORDER RETRIAL AFTER REMAND, WHERE THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN A TRIAL ON EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, CANNOT BE EXERCISED MERELY BECAUSE THE APPELLATE COURT IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PARTIES WHO COULD LEAD BETTER EVIDENCE IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE HAVE FAILED TO DO SO. 12. ON PERUSAL OF THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IT IS A DUTY CAST UPON THE APPELLATE COURT TO REVERSE THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE TRIAL COURT AND GIVE ITS OWN FINDINGS, IF A TRIAL COURT DOES NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTAND THE PLEADINGS. WE FIND THE SAID FINDING OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT RENDERED IN A CIVIL DISPUTE INVOLVING A CLAIM FOR PARTITION AND APPLYING THE SAME TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONDUCTED EXAMINATION OF DETAILS OF EVIDENCES INVOLVING THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PAGE NO.85 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE CIT(A) EXAMINED THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DETAIL AND FOUND SATISFIED WITH THE SAID EXAMINATION REGARDING THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES ARE PROVED. THEREFORE THE CIT(A) DISCHARGED HIS DUTIES AS PROVIDED U/S 251 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE NATURE OF SOURCE OF CREDIT ENTRIES INVOLVING THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE RATIO RENDERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IS OF NO HELP TO THE CONTENTION OF LD. DR. 13. FURTHER, DR. NAYAK, CIT(DR) THE LD. DR REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF HAJI LAL MOHD. BIRI WORKS V. CIT REPORTED IN [2005]145 TAXMANN 578 (ALL.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. PAGE | 10 7. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID RULE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO PRODUCE FRESH ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, IN APPEAL. HOWEVER, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AS MENTIONED IN CLAUSES (A), (B), (C) AND (D) OF SUB-RULE (1) OF RULE 46A, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE FILED. SUB-RULE (2) OF RULE 46A PROVIDES THAT NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE AUTHORITY ADMITTING IT RECORDS IN WRITING THE REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION. THE PROVISION FOR RECORDING REASONS HAS BEEN MADE TO ENABLE THE HIGHER FORUMS TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE, IF RAISED BY AN AGGRIEVED PARTY, BEFORE IT, IN FURTHER APPEAL, ETC., AND TO AVOID ARBITRARINESS IN THE MATTER. THE AUTHORITY SHOULD NOT ACT WHIMSICALLY WHILE EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES. SUB-RULE (2) CASTE A DUTY ON THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED TO RECORD REASONS IN WRITING FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. UNDER SUB-RULE (3) THE FURTHER REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR THE DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT OR TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY WITNESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. THE FINDING THAT HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE PRESENT CASE, IS THAT NO OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE NEW EVIDENCE OR TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THIS FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT UNDER CHALLENGE. IN VIEW OF THIS FINDING IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 46A HAVE BEEN FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT CASE. RULE 46A CONTAINS PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. IN THE CASE IN HAND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FRESH EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE IT WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN VIEW OF THIS WE FIND NO LEGAL INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. APART FROM THE ABOVE THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED BACK THE ABOVE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IT IS STILL OPEN TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF RULE 46A. STRONG RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY LEARNED COUNSEL ON PARAGRAPHS 16 AND 21 OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF K. VENKATARAMIAH, AIR 1963 SC 1526. THE APEX COURT TOOK THE VIEW THAT FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THE SAME WAS PASSED BY IT WITHOUT APPLYING ITS MIND. IN VIEW OF THIS IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT WHEN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN WITH THE ASSENT OF BOTH SIDES OR WITHOUT OBJECTION IT WAS TAKEN, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE PARTY TO COMPLAIN OF IT, LATER ON. THE APEX COURT WAS CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDER 41, RULE 27 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND MADE AN OBSERVATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION. RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES WAS NOT UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE APEX COURT. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE APEX COURT SHOULD BE TAKEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS ON THAT CASE AND IN THE CONTEXT INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED THEREIN. THEREFORE NO HELP CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE AFORESAID RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT. IT HAS NOT BEEN FOUND AS A FACT THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AFTER APPLICATION OF MIND AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASON ON RECORD, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO COME TO SUCH CONCLUSION AT THIS STAGE. BE THAT AS IT MAY THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD OF THE PRESENT CASE TO SHOW THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN WITH THE ASSENT OF BOTH SIDES. THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS PRESENT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL WILL NOT ABSOLVE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY NOT TO PASS ORDER IN WRITING WITH THE REASONS FOR ADMISSION OF FRESH EVIDENCE. MERE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WILL NOT GIVE PRESUMPTION THAT HE ASSENTED FOR TAKING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 14. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORE-MENTIONED FINDING OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, IT WAS HELD THAT IT IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT TO PRODUCE FRESH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND IF AT ALL FRESH EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED, THE REQUIREMENT IS TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE THE SAME. WE FIND IN THE PRESENT CASE THE CIT(A) CLEARLY MENTIONED IN PAGE NO.80 THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING DETAILS OF IDENTITY, I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. PAGE | 11 CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF SHARE-SUBSCRIBERS IN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS THESE DETAILS WERE NOT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR UNDER RULE 46A ON 03.03.2017 AND THE COPY OF PAPER BOOK AS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE WAS SENT TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION. WE FIND THAT THE REPORT IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTION OF CIT(A) WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 09.05.2017 WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO.488 TO 489 OF PAPER BOOK. SO THEREFORE THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EXAMINATION OF THE NEW EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FILED A REPORT BEFORE THE CIT(A). THEREFORE A FINDING OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT APPLICABLE. 15. FURTHER HE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF SMT. B. JAYALAKSHMI V. ACIT REPORTED IN [2018] 96 TAXMANN.COM 486 (MADRAS) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 17. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT (A), THE REVENUE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE AND AFFIRMED THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS VERBATIM REPETITION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITS ORDER DATED 29.03.2001, PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE REMAND REPORT DATED 25.11.2001, WHICH WAS CALLED FOR BY THE CIT (A) BASED ON WHICH THE CIT (A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL. TO BE NOTED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON REPORT BEING CALLED FOR, HAS MADE A DETAILED ENQUIRY, AND THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX HAS RECORDED STATEMENTS FROM THE LANDOWNERS VERIFIED THE REVENUE RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE VAO AND THEN SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT. THE TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAVE MADE AN ENDEAVOUR TO EXAMINE AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE REMAND REPORT, WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A). WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THIS COURT IN TCA.NOS.819 TO 821 OF 2010, THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED AND THE FINDINGS IN THE JUDGMENT ARE CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPHS 9 & 10. WE FIND THAT WHILE DISMISSING THE ASSESSEE'S APPEALS, THE QUESTION WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL IS RIGHT IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, HAVING FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND TRAVERSING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE RECORDS AND FINDINGS GIVEN BY AUTHORITIES AS ALSO THE ADMISSION MADE IN THE REMAND REPORT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF. THUS, WHAT WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED, WAS THE EFFECT OF THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES MORE PARTICULARLY, THE ADMISSION MADE IN THE REMAND REPORT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF. THUS, A SUBSIDIARY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW, WHICH WOULD ARISE OUT OF THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED IS WHETHER THE REVENUE WAS ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN AN APPEAL AS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A), WHICH ITSELF WAS BASED UPON A REMAND REPORT 25.11.2002. IF THE ANSWER TO THIS SUBSIDIARY QUESTION OF LAW IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO BE NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS QUOTED ABOVE. THOUGH SUCH A QUESTION WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY FRAMED, THE EFFECT OF THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES AND MORE PARTICULARLY, THE ADMISSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT, I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. PAGE | 12 WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED. THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONSIDERATION OF THIS IMPORTANT JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, WE FIND THAT THE JUDGMENT, DATED 30.09.2013, SUFFERS FROM ERROR WHICH IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE JUDGMENT. 18. THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OBJECT TO THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE APPEAL AND FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THIS COURT IN A REVIEW APPLICATION, THE ISSUE CANNOT BE RAISED. 19. FIRSTLY, WE HAVE TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE CANVASSED BEFORE US, IS A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, WHICH COULD BE RAISED AT ANY POINT OF TIME. SECONDLY, THE TRIBUNAL WAS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER AS TO WHETHER IT HAD JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A), WHICH ITSELF WAS BASED UPON A REMAND REPORT. AS NOTICED ABOVE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS A VERBATIM REPETITION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, DATED 29.03.2001. THUS, THE TRIBUNAL WAS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) AND IF HAD BEEN DONE IN A PROPER PROSPECTIVE, THE TRIBUNAL WOULD HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ORDER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL BY THE CIT (A) WAS BASED ON THE REMAND REPORT. IF THIS HAD BEEN TAKEN NOTE OF, THE TRIBUNAL WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER AS TO WHETHER THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE WAS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE IT. IN THE CASE OF JIVATLAL PURTAPSHI (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAVING AGREED TO DELETE THE AMOUNT FROM THE ASSESSMENT AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE DELETION BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CANNOT BE AGGRIEVED BY THAT PART OF THE ORDER TO ENABLE IT TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE, SUCH AN APPEAL, NEITHER COMPETENT NOR CAPABLE OF BEING ENTERTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 20. IN THE CASE OF RAMANLAL KAMDAR V. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 73 (MAD.) , THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT WAS AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH AND ONE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW WHICH WAS FRAMED FOR CONSIDERATION, WAS 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154, WERE RIGHTLY INVOKED.' THE DIVISION BENCH HELD THAT THE REFERENCE ITSELF WAS INCOMPETENT FOR THE REASON THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 1962-63, A MISTAKE AT CREPT IN WHILE MAKING OUT INTEREST UNDER SECTION 139(1)(III). THEREAFTER, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE PROPOSING TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE UNDER SECTION 154 AND CALLING UPON THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID NOTICE EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO THE TAX EFFECT WHICH WOULD RESULT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE RECTIFICATION. THE MISTAKE WAS THAT INSTEAD OF TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS AN UNREGISTERED FIRM FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE INTEREST, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAD TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS A REGISTERED FIRM. THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AND STATED THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION TO REVISION PROPOSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. THEREAFTER, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ADMISSION BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FURTHER APPEAL TO THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL. IT IS THEREAFTER, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ABOVE QUESTION WAS REFERRED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH. THE DIVISION BENCH OPINED THAT THE APPEALS TO THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND TO THE TRIBUNAL BY THE ASSESSEE WERE INCOMPETENT, SINCE THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED REVISION AND ONCE ,THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT IT HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED REVISION AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAD ALSO REVISED THEM THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AS PROPOSED BY HIM, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE WAS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, HE HAD THE RIGHT TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ONCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE HAD ANY GRIEVANCE IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE PARTNER, THE APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER WAS INCOMPETENT AND EQUALLY THE APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL WAS INCOMPETENT AND CONSEQUENTLY, IT WAS HELD THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE COURT ON THE SECOND QUESTION SAID TO ARISE OUT OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS ALSO INCOMPETENT. IN THE CASE OF BANTA SINGH KARTAR SINGH (SUPRA), A SIMILAR QUESTION AROSE IN AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN JIVATLAL PURTAPSHI'S CASE (SUPRA), HELD THAT AN ORDER BASED ON AGREEMENT CANNOT GIVE RISE TO GRIEVANCES AND THE SAME CANNOT BE AGITATED IN APPEAL. I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. PAGE | 13 21. IN COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES & INDUSTRIES LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA), ONE OF THE QUESTION WHICH AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA WAS WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE CONSENT BY THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT CONFER JURISDICTION ON THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO PASS RECTIFICATION ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, IT WAS HELD THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) ITSELF IS INCOMPETENT, SINCE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A PERSON AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154. 22. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CLEAR VIEW THAT THE QUESTION OF LAW AS FRAMED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE APPEALS, TCA NOS.819 TO 821 OF 2010, SHOULD HAVE BEEN RE-FRAMED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE SUBSIDIARY QUESTION ARISING OUT OF THE QUESTION FRAMED NAMELY AS TO WHETHER THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS COMPETENT, WAS REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED. THAT APART, SINCE THE ISSUE TOUCHES UPON THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ENTERTAIN AN APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAVE FIRST ANSWERED THE SAID QUESTION BEFORE PROCEEDING TO TAKE UP THE OTHER ISSUES. 23. AS ALREADY NOTICED, THE TRIBUNAL VERBATIM REPEATED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DATED 29.03.2001, AND IGNORED THE REMAND REPORT, DATED 25.11.2002 AND THE FINDINGS RENDERED BY THE CIT (A) BASED ON SUCH REMAND REPORT. THUS, IF SUCH IS THE SITUATION, THE APPEAL ITSELF WOULD HAVE BEEN INCOMPETENT. HENCE, THIS QUESTION, WHICH TOUCHES UPON THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE INCLINED TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 16. IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS ABOVE, THE LD. DR SEEKS INTERFERENCE OF THIS TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) WHETHER IT HAD BEEN DONE IN A PROPER PERSPECTIVE OR NOT. WE FIND THAT, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE CIT(A) EXERCISED HIS JURISDICTION IN SEEKING REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING EXAMINATION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BY FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE CONTEMPLATED UNDER LAW AND FOUND SATISFIED WITH THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDIT INCREASE INVOLVING THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US AND THERE WAS NO ADVERSE REPORT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE NOR SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES. FURTHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT DEPARTMENT HAVING AGREED TO DELETE THE AMOUNT FROM THE ASSESSMENT AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE DELETION BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CANNOT BE AGGRIEVED BY THAT PART OF THE ORDER TO ENABLE IT TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BECAUSE IT IS NEITHER COMPETENT NOR CAPABLE OF BEING ENTERTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEN HE HIMSELF I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. PAGE | 14 AGREED TO DELETE THE ADDITION FROM THE ASSESSMENT ITSELF. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR IS THAT THIS TRIBUNAL SHOULD CONSIDER THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) WHETHER IT IS PASSED IN A PROPER PERSPECTIVE OR NOT. 17. FURTHER, DR. NAYAK REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT V. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING (P) LTD. REPORTED IN [2015] 56 TAXMANN.COM 286 (DELHI) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 38. THE PROVISION OF APPEAL, BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) AND THEN BEFORE THE ITAT, IS MADE MORE AS A CHECK ON THE ABUSE OF POWER AND AUTHORITY BY THE AO. WHILST IT IS TRUE THAT IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THE AO TO CONDUCT PROPER SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE TWO APPELLATE AUTHORITIES ABOVE ARE ALSO FORUMS FOR FACT-FINDING, IN THE EVENT OF AO FAILING TO DISCHARGE HIS FUNCTIONS PROPERLY, THE OBLIGATION TO CONDUCT PROPER INQUIRY ON FACTS WOULD NATURALLY SHIFT TO THE DOOR OF THE SAID APPELLATE AUTHORITY. FOR SUCH PURPOSES, WE ONLY NEED TO POINT OUT ONE STEP IN THE PROCEDURE IN APPEAL AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHEREIN, BESIDES IT BEING OBLIGATORY FOR THE RIGHT OF HEARING TO BE AFFORDED NOT ONLY TO THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO THE AO, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS GIVEN THE LIBERTY TO MAKE, OR CAUSE TO BE MADE, 'FURTHER INQUIRY', IN TERMS OF SUB-SECTION (4) WHICH READS AS UNDER: 'THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MAY, BEFORE DISPOSING OF ANY APPEAL, MAKE SUCH FURTHER INQUIRY AS HE THINKS FIT, OR MAY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRY AND REPORT THE RESULT OF THE SAME TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS).' 39. THE FURTHER INQUIRY ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 250(4) QUOTED ABOVE IS GENERALLY BY CALLING WHAT IS KNOWN AS 'REMAND REPORT'. THE PURPOSE OF THIS ENABLING CLAUSE IS ESSENTIALLY TO ENSURE THAT THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT REACHES FINALITY WITH ALL THE REQUISITE FACTS FOUND. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RE-OPENED ON THE BASIS OF PRELIMINARY SATISFACTION THAT SOME PART OF THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, PARTICULARLY WHEN SOME UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRIES HAVE COME TO THE NOTICE (AS IN SECTION 68), CANNOT CONCLUDE, SAVE AND EXCEPT BY REACHING SATISFACTION ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF THE THREE TESTS MENTIONED EARLIER; VIZ. THE IDENTITY OF THE THIRD PARTY MAKING THE PAYMENT, ITS CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. WHILST IT IS TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CALLED UPON TO ADDUCE CONCLUSIVE PROOF ON ALL THESE THREE QUESTIONS, IT IS NONETHELESS LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF THE PROCESS THAT HE WOULD BRING IN SOME PROOF SO AS TO DISCHARGE THE INITIAL BURDEN PLACED ON HIM. SINCE SECTION 68 ITSELF DECLARES THAT THE CREDITED SUM WOULD HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPLANATION, OR IN THE EVENT OF EXPLANATION BEING NOT SATISFACTORY, IT NATURALLY FOLLOWS THAT THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH HIS EXPLANATION MUST ITSELF BE WHOLESOME OR NOT UNTRUE. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE EXPLANATION AND THE MATERIAL OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THIS STAGE PASSES THIS MUSTER THAT THE INITIAL ONUS PLACED ON HIM WOULD SHIFT LEAVING IT TO THE AO TO START INQUIRING INTO THE AFFAIRS OF THE THIRD PARTY. 40. THE CIT (APPEALS), AS ALSO THE ITAT, IN THE CASE AT HAND, IN OUR VIEW, UNJUSTIFIABLY CRITICIZED THE AO FOR NOT HAVING CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FACTS REGARDING RETURN OF SOME OF THE SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OR NOT HAVING GIVEN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE IDENTITY OF ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS TO BE PROPERLY ESTABLISHED. THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES TAKEN NOTE OF IN THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) SEEM TO INDICATE OTHERWISE. THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS), WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY ITAT IN THE SECOND APPEAL, DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE AS TO ON THE BASIS OF WHICH MATERIAL IT HAD BEEN CONCLUDED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAD BEEN DULY ESTABLISHED. THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO DISCUSSION IN THE SAID ORDERS ON SUCH SCORE, EXCEPT FOR VAGUE DESCRIPTION OF THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. WHILST IT DOES APPEAR THAT THE TIME GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PROVING THE IDENTITY OF THE THIRD PARTY WAS TOO SHORT, AND FURTHER THAT IT IS PROBABLY NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED IN SUCH SITUATION TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. PAGE | 15 THE PHYSICAL ATTENDANCE OF SUCH THIRD PARTY (WHO, IN THE CASE OF SHARE APPLICANTS VIS--VIS A COMPANY, WOULD BE INDIVIDUALS AT LARGE AND MAY NOT BE EVEN IN DIRECT OR PERSONAL CONTACT), THE CURTAINS ON SUCH EXERCISE AT VERIFICATION MAY NOT BE DRAWN AND ADVERSE INFERENCES REACHED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF RETURNING UNDELIVERED OF THE SUMMONSES UNDER SECTION 131. CONVERSELY, WITH DOUBTS AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF SOME OF THE PARTIES PERSISTING ON ACCOUNT OF NON- DELIVERY OF THE PROCESSES, THE INITIAL BURDEN ON THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE PROOF OF IDENTITY CANNOT BE TREATED AS DISCHARGED. 41. WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CIT (APPEALS), AND CONSEQUENTLY WITH ITAT, TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN HAD COME UP WITH SOME PROOF OF IDENTITY OF SOME OF THE ENTRIES IN QUESTION. BUT, FROM THIS INFERENCE, OR FROM THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT SATISFACTION AS TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES OR THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. 42. THE AO HERE MAY HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION TO CONDUCT A PROPER INQUIRY TO TAKE THE MATTER TO LOGICAL CONCLUSION. BUT CIT (APPEALS), HAVING NOTICED WANT OF PROPER INQUIRY, COULD NOT HAVE CLOSED THE CHAPTER SIMPLY BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE. IT WAS ALSO THE OBLIGATION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AS INDEED OF ITAT, TO HAVE ENSURED THAT EFFECTIVE INQUIRY WAS CARRIED OUT, PARTICULARLY IN THE FACE OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS REVEAL A UNIFORM PATTERN OF CASH DEPOSITS OF EQUAL AMOUNTS IN THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS PRECEDING THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. THIS NECESSITATED A DETAILED SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ISSUED BY THE AO, AS ALSO THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED AT THE STAGE OF APPEALS, IF DEEMED PROPER BY WAY OF MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE A 'FURTHER INQUIRY' IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER UNDER SECTION 250(4). THIS APPROACH NOT HAVING BEEN ADOPTED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ITAT, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT OF CIT (APPEALS), CANNOT BE APPROVED OR UPHELD. 18. IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ABOVE, WE FIND IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ISSUE IS INVOLVING AN ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE SAID PROVISION REQUIRES AN EXPLANATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE THREE INGREDIENTS I.E IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISCHARGED HIS DUTY IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS BY EXAMINING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND FOUND SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS IN RESPECT OF THE THREE INGREDIENTS MENTIONED ABOVE. THEREFORE THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DOES NOT COME TO THE RESCUE TO THE APPELLANT-REVENUE. 19. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR, CASE LAWS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE NOS.488 & 489 WHEREIN IT ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE PROVED IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF SHARE SUBSCRIBING I.T.A NO.1882/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. PAGE | 16 COMPANIES AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND IT IS JUSTIFIED. THUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.08.2019. SD/- SD/- [P. M. JAGTAP] [S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :30.08.2019 PLACE : KOLKATA RS, SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA. 2 RESPONDENT M/S. DIGNITY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD., 9/12, LAL BAZAR STREET, MERCANTILE BLDG., 2 ND FLOOR, BLOCK-E, KOL-1. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KO LKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA