M/s Bhagwati Vintrade Private Limited , Kolkata V. I.T.O.,Ward-10(4), Kolkata

ITA 195/KOL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3343 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2021
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S M SURANA SH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Assessment record; Onus to prove; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 133(6); 113; 13; 153; 22; 131; 68; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI ABY T. VARKEY, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 195/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED......................................APPELLANT C/O RAJESH MOHAN & ASSOCIATES UNIT NO. 18 5 TH FLOOR BAGATI HOUSE 34, GANESH CHANDRA AVENUE KOLKATA - 700 013 [PAN : AADCB 5949 F] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(4) KOLKATA............................................................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI S.M. SURANA, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI MANISH KANOJIA, CIT, D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : FEBRUARY 10 TH , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 24 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 (APPEALS) 4, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD. PR. CIT), PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 31/01/2020, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, WHEREIN HE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED U/S 263 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 22/12/2017 FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT ON THE SPECIFIED ISSUE OF ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT OF SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED ALONG WITH SHARE PREMIUM. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THIS YEAR ARE THE SAME AS THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, ARE IDENTICAL AND THE GROUNDS, REASONS AND BASIS OF THAT ORDER ARE THE SAME AND HENCE, THE ARGUMENTS TAKEN BY HIM IN THAT CASE, MAY BE CONSIDERED AS THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE AS WELL. THE LD. D/R AGREED WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FACTS ETC., OF BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE IDENTICAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. D/R IN THAT CASE, MAY BE CONSIDERED AS ARGUMENTS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS CASE AS WELL AND THE CASE MAY BE DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. 3. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CASES OF BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013 ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ARE IDENTICAL ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BEING T ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 ITAT HAD HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS OFFERED INCOME U/S 115JB OF THE ACT, BY DECLARING BOOK P THE REAL SENSE. HE ALSO GIVES A FINDING THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE OF LAUNDERING OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE GARB OF SHARE PREMIUM. HE GAVE A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE HAD EVERY POTENTI AL FOR APPRECIATING IN FUTURE AND THIS JUSTIFIES THE SHARE PREMIUM. AT PAGE 5 & 6, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERS TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT AND THE RESULTS OF THE ENQUIRY DONE BY HIM IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT. HE RECOR U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANY PERSONAL APPEARANCE. HE GAVE A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANY IS IN INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES AND HAD UNDERTAKEN SEVERAL TRAN DEPARTMENTAL INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED FOR INSPECTION AND THAT THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR SUPPORTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO GAVE DETAILS OF HIS FINDINGS ON EXAMINATION OF THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE S HAREHOLDER AT PAGES 5 & 6 OF HIS ORDER. STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ON OATH FROM THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES M/S. LAKSHMI DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED. AFTER ALL THESE ENQUIRIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. PR . CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 29/02/2020, STATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE DETAILS JUDICIOUSLY AND THAT THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH ENQUIRIES MADE. THIS FINDING IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE LD. PR. CIT THAT ENQUIRY OR A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, CANNOT BE REVISED ON THE GROUND THAT, IN THE OPINION OF THE LD. PR. CIT, THE ENQUIRIES WER DEMONSTRATES THAT HIS GRIEVANCE IS THAT THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON THE EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE CONCLUSIONS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DRAWN BY HIM HAD HE BEEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS IS NO GROUND FOR MAKING A REVISIONS. THE RECORDINGS OF THE LD. PR. CIT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE JUSTIFICATION OF FIXING OF SHARE PREMIUM OR THAT HAS NOT EXAMINED OR ENQUIRED INTO THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE T HE HAS NOT ENQUIRED THE POSSIBILITY OF THE TRANSACTION BEING SHAM AND THE ACTIVITY BEING A CASE OF LAUNDERING OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME ETC., IS AGAINST FACTS. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IN DETAIL DESCRIBED THE ENQUIRIES MADE BY HI COMMENTS AS FOLLOWS:- THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT TO BE EQUATE TO RUPEES OR PAISA MERELY. THEN, HE GOES ON TO STATE THAT, THE COMMISSIONER MAY THINK THAT THE ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE ADMINISTRATION. THESE OBSERVATION ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS CAN BE SEEN FROM VARIOUS JUDGMENTS WHICH ARE DISMISSED BY US. 12. THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE CASE OF PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT IN ITA NO. 838/KOL/2019, DT. 12/08/2020, HELD AS FOLLOWS: 2 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CASES OF BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013 -14 AND 2012- 13, THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ARE IDENTICAL BEING T HE SAME, WE FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE ITAT ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 -14 , DT. 17/02/2021, WHEREIN, THE WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND E CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: - THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS OFFERED INCOME U/S 115JB OF THE ACT, BY DECLARING BOOK P ROFITS AND THIS IS A COMPANY WHICH IS DOING BUSINESS IN THE REAL SENSE. HE ALSO GIVES A FINDING THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE OF LAUNDERING OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE GARB OF SHARE PREMIUM. HE GAVE A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE HAD EVERY AL FOR APPRECIATING IN FUTURE AND THIS JUSTIFIES THE SHARE PREMIUM. AT PAGE 5 & 6, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERS TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT AND THE RESULTS OF THE ENQUIRY DONE BY HIM IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT. HE RECOR DS THAT SUMMONS WERE ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANY M/S. LAKSHMI DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED, FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. HE GAVE A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANY IS IN INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES AND HAD UNDERTAKEN SEVERAL TRAN SACTIONS OF INVESTMENTS. HE RECORDED THAT DEPARTMENTAL INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED FOR INSPECTION AND THAT THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR SUPPORTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO GAVE DETAILS OF HIS FINDINGS ON EXAMINATION OF THE VARIOUS HAREHOLDER AT PAGES 5 & 6 OF HIS ORDER. STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ON OATH FROM THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES M/S. LAKSHMI DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED. AFTER ALL THESE ENQUIRIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. . CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 29/02/2020, STATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE DETAILS JUDICIOUSLY AND THAT THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH ENQUIRIES MADE. THIS FINDING IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE LD. PR. CIT THAT THIS IS A CASE OF NO ENQUIRY OR A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, CANNOT BE REVISED ON THE GROUND THAT, IN THE OPINION OF THE LD. PR. CIT, THE ENQUIRIES WER E NOT ADEQUATE. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT DEMONSTRATES THAT HIS GRIEVANCE IS THAT THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON THE EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE CONCLUSIONS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS IS NO GROUND FOR MAKING A REVISIONS. THE RECORDINGS OF THE LD. PR. CIT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE JUSTIFICATION OF FIXING OF SHARE PREMIUM OR THAT HAS NOT EXAMINED OR ENQUIRED INTO THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE T RANSACTION, AND THAT HE HAS NOT ENQUIRED THE POSSIBILITY OF THE TRANSACTION BEING SHAM AND THE ACTIVITY BEING A CASE OF LAUNDERING OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME ETC., IS AGAINST FACTS. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IN DETAIL DESCRIBED THE ENQUIRIES MADE BY HI M AND HIS FINDINGS ON SUCH ENQUIRIES. THE LD. PR. CIT FURTHER THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT TO BE EQUATE TO RUPEES OR PAISA MERELY. THEN, HE GOES ON TO STATE THAT, THE COMMISSIONER MAY THINK THAT THE ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL THE REVENUE ADMINISTRATION. THESE OBSERVATION ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS CAN BE SEEN FROM VARIOUS JUDGMENTS WHICH ARE DISMISSED BY US. THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE CASE OF IN ITA NO. 838/KOL/2019, DT. 12/08/2020, HELD AS FOLLOWS: - ITA NO. 195/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE 13, THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ARE IDENTICAL . THE HE SAME, WE FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE , DT. 17/02/2021, WHEREIN, THE WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND E CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS OFFERED INCOME ROFITS AND THIS IS A COMPANY WHICH IS DOING BUSINESS IN THE REAL SENSE. HE ALSO GIVES A FINDING THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE OF LAUNDERING OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE GARB OF SHARE PREMIUM. HE GAVE A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE HAD EVERY AL FOR APPRECIATING IN FUTURE AND THIS JUSTIFIES THE SHARE PREMIUM. AT PAGE 5 & 6, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERS TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT AND THE RESULTS OF THE ENQUIRY DONE BY DS THAT SUMMONS WERE ISSUED M/S. LAKSHMI DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED, FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. HE GAVE A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANY IS IN INVESTMENT SACTIONS OF INVESTMENTS. HE RECORDED THAT DEPARTMENTAL INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED FOR INSPECTION AND THAT THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR SUPPORTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO GAVE DETAILS OF HIS FINDINGS ON EXAMINATION OF THE VARIOUS HAREHOLDER AT PAGES 5 & 6 OF HIS ORDER. STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ON OATH FROM THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES M/S. LAKSHMI DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED. AFTER ALL THESE ENQUIRIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. . CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 29/02/2020, STATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE DETAILS JUDICIOUSLY AND THAT THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH ENQUIRIES MADE. THIS IS A CASE OF NO ENQUIRY OR A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, CANNOT BE REVISED ON THE GROUND THAT, IN THE E NOT ADEQUATE. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT DEMONSTRATES THAT HIS GRIEVANCE IS THAT THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON THE EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE CONCLUSIONS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS IS NO GROUND FOR MAKING A REVISIONS. THE RECORDINGS OF THE LD. PR. CIT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE JUSTIFICATION OF FIXING OF SHARE RANSACTION, AND THAT HE HAS NOT ENQUIRED THE POSSIBILITY OF THE TRANSACTION BEING SHAM AND THE ACTIVITY BEING A CASE OF LAUNDERING OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME ETC., IS AGAINST FACTS. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IN DETAIL M AND HIS FINDINGS ON SUCH ENQUIRIES. THE LD. PR. CIT FURTHER THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT TO BE EQUATE TO RUPEES OR PAISA MERELY. THEN, HE GOES ON TO STATE THAT, THE COMMISSIONER MAY THINK THAT THE ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL THE REVENUE ADMINISTRATION. THESE OBSERVATION ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS CAN BE SEEN THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE CASE OF AMRITRASHI INFRA 46. THE CASE IN HAND AND FIND OUT WHETHER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF FIRST LD. PR. CIT, THE SECOND AO HAS CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER THE AO FAILED TO ENQUIRE ON THIS ISSUE AND WHETHER HIS RE VIEW OR IT CAN BE TERMED AS AN U OF THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE FIRST PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 AND THE REASSESSMENT /SECOND ASSESSMENT OF THE AO DATED 07.12.2016, THE FOLLOWING FACTS CAN BE DISCERNED: (A)THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT HAS 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 GENUINEOUS OF SHARE SUBSCRIBERS: (I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI) 47. WE NOTE THAT THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT IN HIS FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER, FOUND THAT AO IN THE FIRST ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THOUGH HAS BEEN P DOCUMENTS HAS NOT EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE AO. THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AT PARA (4) OF HIS FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER HAS CLEARLY MADE A FINDING THAT FROM THE ABOVE DISCU THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED IN A VERY CASUAL MANNER AND HURRIED MANNER FLOUTING ALL ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES. DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FURNISHING/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO PR. CIT MAINLY FOUND FAULT WITH THE AOS ORDER FOR NON 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 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 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 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 TO DIRECT PASSED ON 26.03.2015 IS SET ASIDE DE NOVO WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE AO TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE INVESTOR. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF S ENTITY OF INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITING FOR TIME BAR LIMIT. WITH THE AFORESAID SPECIFIC DIRECTI LD. PR. CIT 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 M EANS THE SECOND AO IS FREE TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AFRESH, HOWEVER, HE HAS 3 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORE- CITED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, LET US EXAMINE THE CASE IN HAND AND FIND OUT WHETHER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF FIRST LD. PR. CIT, THE SECOND AO HAS DISCHARGED HIS ROLE AS AN INVESTIGATOR IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER THE AO FAILED TO ENQUIRE ON THIS ISSUE AND WHETHER HIS RE - ASSESSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW OR IT CAN BE TERMED AS AN U NSUSTAINABLE VIEW IN LAW. WE ON A CONJOINT READING OF THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE FIRST PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 AND THE 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 SHARE SUBSCRIBERS: - 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; RECO RDS RELATING TO INVESTORS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. WE NOTE THAT THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT IN HIS FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER, FOUND THAT AO IN THE FIRST ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THOUGH HAS BEEN P ROVIDED WITH THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS NOT EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE AO. THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AT PARA (4) OF HIS FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER HAS CLEARLY MADE A FINDING THAT FROM THE ABOVE DISCU SSION IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED IN A VERY CASUAL MANNER AND HURRIED MANNER FLOUTING ALL ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FURNISHING/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO .FURTHER 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 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 - DETERMINED 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 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. THEREAFTER, THE LD. PR. CIT WAS PLEASED TO DIRECT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 26.03.2015 IS SET ASIDE DE NOVO WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE AO TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE INVESTOR. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF S HARE APPLICATION, ENTITY OF INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS . (EMPHASIS GIVEN BY US). HE ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITING FOR TIME BAR LIMIT. WITH THE AFORESAID SPECIFIC DIRECTI LD. PR. CIT HAS SET ASIDE THE FIRST ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26 - 03 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 ASSESSMENT WHICH EANS THE SECOND AO IS FREE TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AFRESH, HOWEVER, HE HAS ITA NO. 195/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED CITED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, LET US EXAMINE THE CASE IN HAND AND FIND OUT WHETHER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF FIRST LD. DISCHARGED HIS ROLE AS AN INVESTIGATOR IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER THE AO FAILED TO ENQUIRE ASSESSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER IS A PLAUSIBLE NSUSTAINABLE VIEW IN LAW. WE ON A CONJOINT READING OF THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE FIRST PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 AND THE REASSESSMENT /SECOND ASSESSMENT OF THE AO DATED 07.12.2016, THE FOLLOWING FACTS 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 IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND RDS RELATING TO INVESTORS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. WE NOTE THAT THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT IN HIS FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER, FOUND THAT ROVIDED WITH THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS NOT EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE AO. THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AT PARA (4) OF HIS FIRST REVISIONAL SSION IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED IN A VERY CASUAL THE ASSESSEE HAD .FURTHER , THE FIRST LD. 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 DETERMINED 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 NATURAL JUSTICE AND, THEREFORE, HE FOUND IT FIT TO ORDER DENOVO ASSESSMENT AND GAVE SPECIFIC DIRECTION IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL & 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 HARE APPLICATION, . (EMPHASIS GIVEN BY US). HE ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITING FOR TIME BAR LIMIT. WITH THE AFORESAID SPECIFIC DIRECTI ON, THE FIRST 03 -2015. SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND AO WAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. NOVO ASSESSMENT WHICH EANS 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 APPLIED FOR SHARES IN ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: (I) TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE; II) TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE INVESTORS; III) AO TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS; IV)THE AO TO EXAMINE THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS; SL. N O. NAME OF COMPANY 1. M/S. K. R. OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 2. M/S. KAKRANIA TRADING PVT. LTD. 3. M/S. AMBALATRAFIN PVT. LTD. 4. M/S. SUBHIKSHA PVT. LTD. 5. M/S. SHIVARSHI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 6. M/S. SHIVASHIV PVT. LTD. 7. M/S. FLOWTOP AGENCY PVT. LTD. 8. M/S. SUKHSAGAR RESIDENCY PVT. LTD. 9. M/S. KAMALDHAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 10 . M/S. LABHDHANIMPEX PVT. LTD. 11 . M/S. SUBHSREEIMPEX PVT. LTD. 12 . M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. 13 . M/S. SRISTI SALES PVT. LTD. 4 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED TO DO THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC ACTIONS AS DIRECTED IN RESPECT OF SHARE - APPLICANTS WHO APPLIED FOR SHARES IN ASSESSEE - COMPANY. THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF LD. PR CIT TO AO TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE; TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE INVESTORS; AO TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS; IV)THE AO TO EXAMINE THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS; NAME OF COMPANY CIN M/S. K. R. OVERSEAS PVT. U51109WB1994PTC06196 5 M/S. KAKRANIA TRADING U70101WB1994PTC06213 7 M/S. AMBALATRAFIN PVT. U67120WB1995PTCO743 97 M/S. SUBHIKSHA PVT. LTD. U52190WB2011PTC15707 3 M/S. SHIVARSHI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. U45400WB2011PTC17095 7 M/S. SHIVASHIV PVT. LTD. U74999WB2012PTC 173749 M/S. FLOWTOP AGENCY PVT. U52190WB2012PTC 173352 M/S. SUKHSAGAR RESIDENCY U45400WB2011PTC17095 8 M/S. KAMALDHAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. U45400WB2011PTC17094 4 M/S. LABHDHANIMPEX PVT. U51909WB2011PTC17152 4 M/S. SUBHSREEIMPEX PVT. U51909WB2011PTC17151 3 M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS U51109WB2005PTC10234 3 M/S. SRISTI SALES PVT. LTD. U51109WB2005PTC10212 1 ITA NO. 195/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED APPLICANTS WHO COMPANY. THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF LD. PR CIT TO AO TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK IV)THE AO TO EXAMINE THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS; PAN ITR FILED FOR AY 2012- 13 AACCK0101B YES AABCK151611 YES AACCA1184G YES AAPCS2068E YES AAQCS7848M YES AARCS0094C YES AABCF9036D YES AARCS1553N YES AAECK6810D YES AACCL2111J YES AARCS1845D YES AAECM224E YES AAICS8900L YES 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 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 SU 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 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 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 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 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 (III) AUDITED ANNUAL REPORT FOR FY 2011 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 ASSE 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 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 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 WERE 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 A POSSIBLE VIEW IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO AND WE ALSO BY AP PRESUMPTION IN SECTION 114 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872, WE PRESUME THAT THE QUASI- JUDICIAL ACT OF THE SECOND AO HAVE BEEN REGULARLY PERFORMED. COMING TO THE CONTENTION OF LD. CIT, DR, THAT ORDER SHEET MAINTAINED BY THE SECOND AO DOES NOT REVEA L THAT AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, WE NOTE THAT THE AO IN HIS REASSESSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS CLEARLY ASSERTED THAT HE HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS DIRECTED BY T HE 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 ORDER THAT PURSUANT TO H CALLED FOR CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED MERELY BECAUSE HE DID NOT MENTION THIS EVENT IN THE ORDER SHEET. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE OR THE SHARE APPLICANTS DOES NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE ORDER SHEET MAIN THIS ACTION CANNOT BE A REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE AOS ASSERTION THAT HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, WE HAVE TO EXAMINE THE RE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AO AND NOT THE ORDER 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 5 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AT THE EARLIEST WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE TIME BARRING DATE. 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 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 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 DETAIL, (III) AUDITED ANNUAL REPORT FOR FY 2011 -12 (AY 2012- 13), (IV) ITR ACKNOWLEDGMENT 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 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 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 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 WERE ALSO EXAMINED BY THE AO ALONG WITH AUDITED ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THESE DETAILS IDENTITY. 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 AP PRESUMPTION IN SECTION 114 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872, WE PRESUME THAT THE JUDICIAL ACT OF THE SECOND AO HAVE BEEN REGULARLY PERFORMED. COMING TO THE CONTENTION OF LD. CIT, DR, THAT ORDER SHEET MAINTAINED BY THE SECOND AO DOES NOT L THAT AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, WE NOTE THAT THE AO IN HIS REASSESSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS CLEARLY ASSERTED THAT HE HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS HE 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 ALIA PAGE 32 OF PB - I). SO, THE CLEAR ASSERTION OF THE SECOND AO IN HIS ORDER THAT PURSUANT TO H IS ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 133(6), HE RECEIVED THE DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED MERELY BECAUSE HE DID NOT MENTION THIS EVENT IN THE ORDER SHEET. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE OR THE SHARE APPLICANTS DOES NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE ORDER SHEET MAIN TAINED 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 THE RE - ASSESSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AO AND NOT THE ORDER -S HEET 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 ITA NO. 195/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AT THE EARLIEST WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE 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 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) 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 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, 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 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 TAILS, (II) CIN DETAIL, 13), (IV) ITR ACKNOWLEDGMENT 13 WHICH THE AO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE VERIFIED THE SAME AND THUS WE 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 -2] AND WERE ALSO EXAMINED BY THE AO ALONG WITH AUDITED ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THESE DETAILS 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 AP PLYING THE PRESUMPTION IN SECTION 114 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872, WE PRESUME THAT THE JUDICIAL ACT OF THE SECOND AO HAVE BEEN REGULARLY PERFORMED. COMING TO THE CONTENTION OF LD. CIT, DR, THAT ORDER SHEET MAINTAINED BY THE SECOND AO DOES NOT L THAT AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, WE NOTE THAT THE AO IN HIS REASSESSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS CLEARLY ASSERTED THAT HE HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS HE 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 I). SO, THE CLEAR ASSERTION OF THE SECOND AO IN HIS IS ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 133(6), HE RECEIVED THE DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED MERELY BECAUSE HE DID NOT MENTION THIS EVENT IN THE ORDER SHEET. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE OR THE SHARE APPLICANTS DOES NOT HAVE ANY TAINED 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 ASSESSMENT/SECOND HEET 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 DOCUMEN 352 PAGES. MOREOVER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE FIRST AOS ORDER HAS RETURNED A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST ROUND ITSELF HAS FILED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS CAPITAL AND THAT ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FILING THE SAME. SO WE FIND THAT DURING THE SECOND ROUND, THE AO ISSUED NOTICES TO SHARE 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 CAPITAL WHICH VIEW OF SECOND AO CANNOT BE FAULTED. AND WE ALSO NOTE THAT ALL THE SHARE ASSESS EES. THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED THEIR CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED AND THE AOS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND CANNOT BE TERMED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW OR FACTS. 52. COMING DRAWN TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE SHAREHOLDERS (PB AO AND THE LD. PR. CIT AND WE NOTE THAT THEIR SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND NET WORTH AS PER BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 ASSESSEE IS DISCERNIBLE AS UNDER: NAME SOURCE OF INVESTMENT M/S. K. R. OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. PAGE 8 PAPER BOOK M/S. KAKRANIA TRADING PVT. LTD. PAGE 45PAPER BOOK M/S. AMBALATRAFINPVT. LTD. PAGE 88PAPER BOOK M/S. SUBHIKSHA PVT. LTD. PAGE 115PAPER BOO 2 M/S. SHIVARSHI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. PAGE 146PAPER BOOK 2 M/S. SHIVASHIV PVT. LTD. PAGE 170PAPER BOOK 2 M/S. FLOWTOP AGENCY PVT. LTD. PAGE 193PAPER BOOK 2 M/S. SUKH SAGAR RESIDENCY PVT. LTD. PAGE 212 PAPER BOOK-2 M/S. KAMALDHAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. PAGE246- 247PAPER BOOK-2 M/S. LABHDHAN PAGE 270PAPERBOOK 6 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED SECOND AO ISSUED SEC. 133(6) NOTICE AND COLLECTED DOCUMEN TS RUNNING MORE THAN 352 PAGES. MOREOVER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE FIRST AOS ORDER HAS RETURNED A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST ROUND ITSELF HAS FILED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS CAPITAL AND THAT ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FILING THE SAME. SO WE FIND THAT DURING THE SECOND ROUND, THE AO ISSUED NOTICES TO SHARE - HOLDERS U/S. 133(6) AND AFTER PERUSING 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 CAPITAL WHICH VIEW OF SECOND AO CANNOT BE FAULTED. AND WE ALSO NOTE THAT ALL THE SHARE - HOLDERS ARE REGULAR INCOME TAX EES. THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED THEIR CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED AND THE AOS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND CANNOT BE TERMED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW OR TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE SHAREHOLDERS (PB - 2) WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO AND THE LD. PR. CIT AND WE NOTE THAT THEIR SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND NET WORTH AS PER BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 .03.2012 AS WELL AS THE SUM INVESTED BY THEM IN THE ASSESSEE IS DISCERNIBLE AS UNDER: SOURCE OF INVESTMENT CAPITAL & RESERVES SUM INVESTED IN ASSESSEES BUSINESS PAGE 8 PAPER BOOK -2 RS.66,77,47,921 (PAGE 22 PB-2) RS.1,30,000/ PAGE 45PAPER BOOK -2 RS.66,52,71,914 (PAGE 62 PB-2) RS.1,39,00,000/ PAGE 88PAPER BOOK -2 RS.624,711,003 (PAGE 101 PB-2) RS.4,40,00,000/ PAGE 115PAPER BOO K- RS.222,397,317 (PAGE 128 PB-2) RS.45,00,000/ PAGE 146PAPER BOOK - RS.53,89,95,046 ( PAGE 153 PB-2) RS.4,66,00,000/ PAGE 170PAPER BOOK - RS.14,29,56,146 (PAGE 178 PB-2) RS.6,55,00,000/ PAGE 193PAPER BOOK - RS.15,38,94,946 (PAGE 200 PB-2) RS.4,49,00,000/ PAGE 212 PAPER RS.56,18,93,960 (PAGE 220 PB-2) RS.2,31,00,000/ 247PAPER RS.56,18,94,080 (PAGE 254 PB-2) RS.12,54,00,000/ PAGE 270PAPERBOOK - RS.56,18,94,080 RS. 3,80,00,000/ ITA NO. 195/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED TS RUNNING MORE THAN 352 PAGES. MOREOVER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE FIRST AOS ORDER HAS RETURNED A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST ROUND ITSELF HAS FILED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND THAT ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FILING THE SAME. SO WE FIND THAT 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 CAPITAL WHICH VIEW OF SECOND AO CANNOT HOLDERS ARE REGULAR INCOME TAX EES. THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED THEIR IDENTITY CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED AND THE AOS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND CANNOT BE TERMED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW OR OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, OUR ATTENTION WAS 2) WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO AND THE LD. PR. CIT AND WE NOTE THAT THEIR SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND NET WORTH AS .03.2012 AS WELL AS THE SUM INVESTED BY THEM IN THE SUM INVESTED IN ASSESSEES BUSINESS RS.1,30,000/ - RS.1,39,00,000/ - RS.4,40,00,000/ - RS.45,00,000/ - RS.4,66,00,000/ - RS.6,55,00,000/ - RS.4,49,00,000/ - RS.2,31,00,000/ - RS.12,54,00,000/ - RS. 3,80,00,000/ - IMPEX PVT. LTD. 2 M/S. SUBHSREEI MPEX PVT. LTD. PAGE 290 OF PAPER BOOK M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. - M/S. SRISTI SALES PVT. LTD. - 53. SO, FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CHART, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND THE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF SECOND AO THAT THEY (SHARE SUBSCRIBERS) HAVE ENOUGH NET WORTH TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES PURSU RESPECTIVE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THE AFORESAID FACTS ARE CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE AND MOREOVER THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE SECOND AO THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THEY SUBSCR FORCE FOR AY 2012 MAHARAJA AND M/S SRISTI SALES. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT ABOUT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE INVESTMENTS HAS BEEN CLEARLY BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE SECOND AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, THE BANK STATEMENTS OF ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS AS WELL AS THAT OF ASSESSEE WERE FILED B THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM HAVE BEEN SUBSCRIBED BY THEM THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL (NEFT OR CHEQUE) WHICH GOES ON TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS IN RESPECT OF MATERIALS CALLED FOR BY THE AO WHO ACCEPTED THE SAME AFTER VERIFICATION IS AN ACT OF ENQUIRY. AND WE NOTE THAT REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO CHALLENGE THE VERACITY OF THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE. MOREOVER, THE SECON 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 SECOND AOS VIEW BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO BY HIM IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND IN CONSONANCE WITH JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS (SUPRA) WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS/ EXAMINE EACH SHARE SUBSCRIBE (I) ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK PLACED AT PAGE 12 TO 37 OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. U51109WB1994PTC061965 TOTAL) PAGE 22) AND THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE THE SHARE PREMIUM COMES TO RS.1,30,00 MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF RS.1,05,00,000/ RS.25,00,000/ OF THE COMPANY IS FILED AND THE SHARE APPLICATION ACKNOWLEDGMENT, BANK STATEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT P. B PAGE 3 7 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED (PAGE 277 PB-2) PAGE 290 OF PAPER RS.76,60,93,960 (PAGE 297 PB-2) RS. 2,76,00.000/ RS.1,54,58,399 (PAGE 313 PB-2) RS. 50,00,000/ RS.1,12,25,632 (PAGE 336 PB-2) RS.50,00,000/ SO, FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CHART, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND THE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF SECOND AO THAT THEY (SHARE SUBSCRIBERS) HAVE ENOUGH NET WORTH TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES PURSU ANT TO THE AOS NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT HAVE FURNISHED THEIR RESPECTIVE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THE AFORESAID FACTS ARE CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE AND MOREOVER THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE SECOND AO THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THEY SUBSCR IBED TO SHARES OF ASSESSEE (THOUGH NOT REQUIRED AS PER LAW IN FORCE FOR AY 2012 - 13), BANK STATEMENT, AUDITED BALANCE SHEET ETC EXCEPT M/S MAHARAJA AND M/S SRISTI SALES. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT ABOUT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE - HOLDERS. SO WE NOTE THAT THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS HAS BEEN CLEARLY BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE SECOND AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, THE BANK STATEMENTS OF ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS AS WELL AS THAT OF ASSESSEE WERE FILED B EFORE THE AO, WHICH REVEALED THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM HAVE BEEN SUBSCRIBED BY THEM THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL (NEFT OR CHEQUE) WHICH GOES ON TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS IN RESPECT OF GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. BASED ON TH E DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS CALLED FOR BY THE AO WHO ACCEPTED THE SAME AFTER VERIFICATION IS AN ACT OF ENQUIRY. AND WE NOTE THAT REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO CHALLENGE THE VERACITY OF THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE. MOREOVER, THE SECON 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, AND GENUINITY OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION. IN SUCH A SCENARIO, THE SECOND AOS VIEW BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO BY HIM IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND IN CONSONANCE WITH JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS (SUPRA) WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS/ EXAMINE EACH SHARE SUBSCRIBE RS TOTALING THIRTEEN (13) INFRA;- ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2, IT REVEALS THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE PLACED AT PAGE 12 TO 37 OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. K.R. OVERSEAS PVT. LIMITED WHICH IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, AND WHICH HAS PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. AACCK0101B U51109WB1994PTC061965 AND ITS NET- WORTH AS ON 31.03.2012 (IN TOTAL) - SHARE CAPITAL & RESERVE IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.66,77,47,921/ PAGE 22) AND THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY INCLUDING THE SHARE PREMIUM COMES TO RS.1,30,00 ,000/- . THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF RS.1,05,00,000/ - TOOK PLACE AS ON 01.03.2012 BY NEFT AND RS.25,00,000/ - AS ON 06.03.2012. THE BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT OF THE COMPANY IS FILED AND THE SHARE APPLICATION 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 ITA NO. 195/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED RS. 2,76,00.000/ - RS. 50,00,000/ - RS.50,00,000/ - SO, FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CHART, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND THE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF SECOND AO THAT THEY (SHARE SUBSCRIBERS) HAVE ENOUGH NET WORTH TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBING ANT TO THE AOS NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT HAVE FURNISHED THEIR RESPECTIVE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THE AFORESAID FACTS ARE CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE AND MOREOVER THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE SECOND AO THE SOURCE IBED TO SHARES OF ASSESSEE (THOUGH NOT REQUIRED AS PER LAW IN 13), BANK STATEMENT, AUDITED BALANCE SHEET ETC EXCEPT M/S MAHARAJA AND M/S SRISTI SALES. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT 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 EFORE THE AO, WHICH REVEALED THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM HAVE BEEN SUBSCRIBED BY THEM THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL (NEFT OR CHEQUE) WHICH GOES ON TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED E DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS CALLED FOR BY THE AO WHO ACCEPTED THE SAME AFTER VERIFICATION IS AN ACT OF ENQUIRY. AND WE NOTE THAT REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO CHALLENGE THE VERACITY OF THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE. MOREOVER, THE SECON D LD. PR. CIT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF SECOND AO TO JUSTIFY HIS INTERVENTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT AND WHICH WOULD HAVE UPSET THE DECISION OF THE SECOND AOS FACTUAL VIEW ON THE IDENTITY, AND GENUINITY OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION. IN SUCH A SCENARIO, THE SECOND AOS VIEW BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO BY HIM IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND IN CONSONANCE WITH JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS (SUPRA) WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS/ 2, IT REVEALS THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE M/S. K.R. OVERSEAS PVT. WHICH IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, AND WHICH HAS AACCK0101B AND CIN WORTH AS ON 31.03.2012 (IN SHARE CAPITAL & RESERVE IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.66,77,47,921/ - (PB COMPANY INCLUDING . THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF TOOK PLACE AS ON 01.03.2012 BY NEFT AND 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 37AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APP WELL AS INCOME SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE A INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (II) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN IS U70101WB1994PTC062137 ON 31.3.2012RS.66,52,71,914/ THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL FOUR TIMES ON 01.03.2012 RS.30,00,000 THROUGH NEFT; AND BY CHEQUE ON 02.03.2012A SUM OF RS. 59,00,000/ 12.3.2012 RS. 25 LAKH EACH. T ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, AND EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB APPLICANT REGULARL 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 SHARE APPLICANT BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THA HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (III) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN U67120WB1995PTCO74397 31.3.2012 RS.62,47,11,003 ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 01.03.2012 RS. 25 LAKHS; AND ON 03.03.2012 RS. 40 LAKHS THROUGH NEFT; AND BY CHEQUE ON RS. 3,75,00,000/ RESOLUTION FOR INV FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB IN THE PB (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 A TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HA COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (IV) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK PAGES DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN 8 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APP LICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME - TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE A PPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK -2 PAGES 38 TO 77 OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. KAKRANIA TRADING PVT. LTD . IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AABCK151611 AND ITS CIN NUMBER U70101WB1994PTC062137 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012RS.66,52,71,914/ - (PB- PAGE62) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,39,00,000/- APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL FOUR TIMES ON 01.03.2012 RS.30,00,000 THROUGH NEFT; AND BY CHEQUE ON 02.03.2012A SUM OF RS. 59,00,000/ - ; AND ON 7.3.2012 AND BY CHEQUE ON 12.3.2012 RS. 25 LAKH EACH. T HERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, AND EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB - PAGE 39 TO 77. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARL Y FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF SHARE APPLICANT BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME - TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THA T THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (III) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2 PAGES DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. AMBALA TRAFIN PVT. LTD . LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AACCA1184G AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U67120WB1995PTCO74397 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.62,47,11,003 - (PB-PAGE101 ) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,40,00,000/- AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 01.03.2012 RS. 25 LAKHS; AND ON 03.03.2012 RS. 40 LAKHS THROUGH NEFT; AND BY CHEQUE ON RS. 3,75,00,000/ - ON 27.3.2012 . THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INV ESTMENT 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 - II. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RET (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 A DDUCING 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 HA D FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (IV) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK PAGES -2, 112 TO 137 DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. SUBHIKSHA PVT. LTD . IT IS A P LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAPCS2068E AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS ITA NO. 195/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED LICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN 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. FURTHER, PPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE 38 TO 77 , THE DETAILS IT IS A PRIVATE AND ITS CIN NUMBER AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS PAGE62) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL FOUR TIMES ON 01.03.2012 RS.30,00,000 THROUGH NEFT; AND BY CHEQUE ON ; AND ON 7.3.2012 AND BY CHEQUE ON HERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, AND EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS PAGE 39 TO 77. THIS SHARE Y FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD ENOUGH FUNDS COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED T THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY 2 PAGES 78 TO 111, THE IT IS A PRIVATE 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; ON 27.3.2012 . THERE IS BOARD ESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF PAGE 79 TO 111 II. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RET URN (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 DDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME - TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE D FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. 112 TO 137 , THE IT IS A P RIVATE AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U52190WB2011PTC157073 31.3.2012 RS.22,23,97,317/ THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 45,00,000/ APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 02.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.45 LAKHS THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPL FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB 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 FU 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 RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE 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 S (V) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAQCS7848M AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011P COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.53,89,95,046/ INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,66,00,000/ THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03. 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 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 INCOM 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 FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NO FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (VI) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK PAGES DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT 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/ INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE CO RS.6,55,00,000/ THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03.2012 RS.6,55,00,000/ CHEQUE. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BA 9 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED U52190WB2011PTC157073 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.22,23,97,317/ - (PB- PAGE 128.) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 45,00,000/ - APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 02.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.45 LAKHS THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPL ANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB - PAGE 113 TO 137 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FU NDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT 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 S ECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (V) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2, PAGES 138 TO 159 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. SHIVARSHI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAQCS7848M AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011P TC170957 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.53,89,95,046/ - (PB- PAGE 153) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,66,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03. 2012 RS.4,66,00,000/ 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 139 T O 159 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOM 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 BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NO TED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (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 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/ -(PB- PAGE 178) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,55,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03.2012 RS.6,55,00,000/ CHEQUE. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BA NK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, ITA NO. 195/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON PAGE 128.) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 02.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.45 LAKHS THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION ANATION OF SOURCE OF 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 NDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME -TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD 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 - ECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. 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 TC170957 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS PAGE 153) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION 2012 RS.4,66,00,000/ -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 O 159 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOM E 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 TAX RETURNS. THE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO 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 TED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD - COMPANY AFTER 2, 160 TO 184 THE 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 PAGE 178) AND MPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03.2012 RS.6,55,00,000/ - THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY NK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HA FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRA IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE 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 AABCF9036D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U52190WB2012PTC 173352AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.15,38,94,946/ THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,49,00,000/ APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 30.03.2012 RS.4,49,00,000/ RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COM FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB N THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED I HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVES T IN THE ASSESSEE 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 FU RNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (VIII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK PAGES DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT PRIVATE 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/ INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,31 THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.3.2012 RS. 2,31,00,000/ NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMEN EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE O FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME 10 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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 HA S FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME - TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL ST 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 TRA NSACTIONS. 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. (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 INV ESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,49,00,000/ - APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 30.03.2012 RS.4,49,00,000/ - THROUGH CHEQUE. . THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COM PANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB - PAGE 186 TO 206 N THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED I TS BANK STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME - TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO T 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 RNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF 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. PRIVATE 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 INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,31 ,00,000/- AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.3.2012 RS. 2,31,00,000/ NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMEN EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB -PAGE 208- 226 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE O F FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME - TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT ITA NO. 195/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN PAGE 161 TO 184 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS S 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 ST ATEMENT 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 NSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE 2, PAGES 185 TO 206 THE . 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 ESTMENT MADE IN AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON THROUGH CHEQUE. . THERE IS BOARD PANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF PAGE 186 TO 206 N THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) TS BANK STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO 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 - COMPANY AFTER 2,207 TO 226 THE M/S. SUKHSAGAR RESIDENCY PVT. LTD. IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS1553N AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011PTC170958AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS 2 PAGES -220) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.3.2012 RS. 2,31,00,000/ - THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMEN T, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN 226 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS F 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 APPLIC ASSESSEE CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THA INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE 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 IS U45400WB2011 PTC 170944 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.56,18,94,080/ THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO TH APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 RS. 12,54,00,000/ FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLYFILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED TH 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. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINES IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (X) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AACCL2111J AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51909WB2011PTC171524 AND THE NET WORTH OF THI COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.56,18,94,080/ INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,80,00,000/ 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, 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. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUG ASSESSEE 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 A INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. 11 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLIC ANT 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 THA T 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. (IX) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2, PAGES 227 TO 261 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. KAM ALDHAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECK6810D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011 PTC 170944 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.56,18,94,080/ - AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO TH E TUNE OF RS.12,54,00,000/- APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 RS. 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 228 TO 261 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLYFILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED TH 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. 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, CREDITWORTHINES S AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (X) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2, PAGES 262 TO 283 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. LABHDHAN IMPEXT PVT. LTD. PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AACCL2111J AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51909WB2011PTC171524 AND THE NET WORTH OF THI COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.56,18,94,080/ - (P.B- 2, PAGE 277) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,80,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH 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, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB -PAGE 163- 283 IN THE PB. THIS S APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUG H 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 A PPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 195/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED ANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, T THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE 2, PAGES 227 TO 261 THE ALDHAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD . IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECK6810D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011 PTC 170944 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS AND INVESTMENT MADE IN AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL PAGE 228 TO 261 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLYFILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED TH E 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. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF STATEMENTS. 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 S AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE 2, PAGES 262 TO 283 THE M/S. LABHDHAN IMPEXT PVT. LTD. IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AACCL2111J AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51909WB2011PTC171524 AND THE NET WORTH OF THI S 2, PAGE 277) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT 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, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL 283 IN THE PB. THIS S HARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT H FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, PPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE (XI) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS1845D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51909WB2011PTC171513 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.76,66,93,960/ THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.2,76,00,0000/ RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM , BANK STATEMENT FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS D 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) (XII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECM224E AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51109WB2005PTC102343 AND TH COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.1,54,58,399/ 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 SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUI APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (XIII)WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT 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/ 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, 352. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND 12 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED (XI) WE NOTE FROM 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/- APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.2,76,00,0000/ - THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN 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 THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE 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 D ISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (XII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2, PAGES 304 TO 326 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECM224E AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51109WB2005PTC102343 AND TH E NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.1,54,58,399/ - (PAGE 313 OF P.B 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 FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB - PAGE 304 TO 326 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUI NENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (XIII)WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK -2 PAGE S 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 INVESTM ENT 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- 2, PAGE 328 TO 352. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND ITA NO. 195/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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 AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION , ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF PAGE 285 -303 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED ISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD - 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 E NET WORTH OF THIS (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 LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, PAGE 304 TO 326 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED 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 NENESS 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. S 327 TO 352 THE 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 ENT 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 2, PAGE 328 TO 352. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THUS FROM THE DISCUSSION ABOVE, IT IS NOTED EXCEPT THE LAST TWO INVEST THIRTEEN (13) SHARE THE ASSESSEE SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. THUS WE NOTE THAT THE AO ON THE BASI AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND DID NOT DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, AND THE VIEW THUS TAKEN BY THE AO CANNOT BE TERMED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 54. SO, FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS REVEALED DURING THE SECOND AO HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AND ENQUIRED AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 U/S. 263 OF THE ACT (FIRST 263 ORDER) AND FURTHER WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT WHILE ISSUING THE SHOW CAU WHILE EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION FOR SECOND TIME HAS NOT MADE EVEN A SINGLE ALLEGATION ABOUT THE NON RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 WH 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 W HILE PASSING THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER ON 23.08.2016. THUS, WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE SECOND AO WHILE FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CITS ORDER DATED 23.08.2016 (FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER) HAS COMPLIED WI TH 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 GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY AS ENVISAGED IN SEC. 68 OF THE ACT IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND THE FACT THAT THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS RESPONDED TO SEC. 133(6) NOTICE AND PRODUCED ALL DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STA 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 AFORES 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 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 GENUIN SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS WAS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT ANY RATE CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW ON LAW OR FACTS 55. FURTHER, WE ALSO TAKE NOTE THAT 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 DISCHARGED THE DUTY OF AN INVESTIGATOR. TO ABOVE ARE AVAILABLE IS THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER BEFORE THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT AND COULD HAVE EASILY EXAMINED THE VERACITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS DATA BASE BY CLICK OF A MOUSE AND COULD HAVE RECORDED HIS FINDING OF FACT IF HE FOUND ANYTHING WRONG WITH THESE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND COULD HAVE POINTED OUT THE ADVERSE FAC T, IF ANY, WHICH THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SO THE INFERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE VERACITY OF THE FACTUAL CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 352 PAGES (PB FACTUALLY CONTROVERTED BY THE SECO 13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THUS FROM THE DISCUSSION ABOVE, IT IS NOTED EXCEPT THE LAST TWO INVEST ORS THE OTHER ELEVEN (11) SHARE APPLICANTS OUT OF THIRTEEN (13) SHARE - HOLDERS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE FROM SECOND AO UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. THUS WE NOTE THAT THE AO ON THE BASI AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND DID NOT DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, AND THE VIEW THUS TAKEN BY THE AO CANNOT BE TERMED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 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 NOTE THAT THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT WHILE ISSUING THE SHOW CAU WHILE EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION FOR SECOND TIME HAS NOT MADE EVEN A SINGLE ALLEGATION ABOUT THE NON - COMPLIANCE/FAILURE ON THE PART OF SECOND AO IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 WH 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 HILE PASSING THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER ON 23.08.2016. THUS, WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE SECOND AO WHILE FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CITS ORDER DATED 23.08.2016 (FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER) HAS COMPLIED TH 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 GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, THE SATISFACTION OF AO AS ENVISAGED IN SEC. 68 OF THE ACT IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND THE FACT THAT THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS RESPONDED TO SEC. 133(6) NOTICE AND PRODUCED ALL DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STA TEMENTS 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 AFORES AID 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 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 GENUIN SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS WAS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT ANY RATE CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW ON LAW OR FACTS FURTHER, WE ALSO TAKE NOTE THAT WHILE HE PROPOSED TO INTERFERE U/S. 263 OF 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 THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT AND COULD HAVE EASILY EXAMINED THE VERACITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS DATA BASE BY CLICK OF A MOUSE AND COULD HAVE RECORDED HIS FINDING OF FACT IF HE FOUND ANYTHING WRONG WITH THESE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND COULD HAVE POINTED OUT THE T, IF ANY, WHICH THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SO THE INFERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE VERACITY OF THE FACTUAL CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 352 PAGES (PB - 2) COULD NOT BE FACTUALLY CONTROVERTED BY THE SECO ND LD. PR. CIT. AND STILL IF THE LD. PR. CIT IS NOT ITA NO. 195/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THUS FROM THE DISCUSSION ABOVE, IT IS NOTED ORS THE OTHER ELEVEN (11) SHARE APPLICANTS OUT OF HOLDERS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE FROM SECOND AO UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. THUS WE NOTE THAT THE AO ON THE BASI S OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND DID NOT DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, AND THE VIEW THUS TAKEN BY THE AO ROUND, WE NOTE THAT AO HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AND ENQUIRED AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 U/S. 263 OF THE ACT (FIRST 263 ORDER) AND FURTHER WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT WHILE ISSUING THE SHOW CAU SE NOTICE WHILE EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION FOR SECOND TIME HAS NOT MADE EVEN A COMPLIANCE/FAILURE ON THE PART OF SECOND AO IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 WH ILE 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 HILE PASSING THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER ON 23.08.2016. THUS, WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE SECOND AO WHILE FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CITS ORDER DATED 23.08.2016 (FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER) HAS COMPLIED TH 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 GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, THE SATISFACTION OF AO AS ENVISAGED IN SEC. 68 OF THE ACT IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND THE FACT THAT THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS RESPONDED TO SEC. 133(6) NOTICE AND PRODUCED ALL DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH TEMENTS 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 AID 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 GENUIN ENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS WAS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT ANY RATE CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW ON LAW OR FACTS FURTHER, WE ALSO TAKE NOTE THAT WHILE HE PROPOSED TO INTERFERE U/S. 263 OF 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 WHEN THERE WAS AN ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO THEN THE AO HAS AND WE NOTE THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE ARE AVAILABLE IS THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER BEFORE THE 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 WITH THESE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND COULD HAVE POINTED OUT THE T, IF ANY, WHICH THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SO THE INFERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE VERACITY OF THE FACTUAL 2) COULD NOT BE AND STILL IF THE LD. PR. CIT IS NOT SATISFIED AND WANTED TO INTERFERE INVOKING JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, HE HAS TO SHOW THAT THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO WAS FLAWED OR THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO WAS ON A WRONG DIRECTION OR ON WRON MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN FACTUAL INVESTIGATION OR APPLIED THE LAW ERRONEOUSLY IN RESPECT OF THE FACTS COLLECTED BY HIM. FOR DOING SO, IN THE FACTS DISCUSSED SUPRA, HE SECOND (LD. PR. CIT) SHOULD HIMSELF HAD CONDUCTED A A PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY AND WAS ABLE TO BRING SOME EVIDENCE/MATERIAL ON RECORD TO UPSET THE AOS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OR GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND THUS RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT ENQUIRY WAS FAULTED OR WRONG AND IN THAT PROCESS TRIED TO SHOW THAT IT HAS RESULTED IN A VIEW WHICH IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW WHICH WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED HIS ACTION OF PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH UNFORT SINCE THE AOS VIEW ON THE FACTS COLLECTED AND DISCUSSED IS DEFINITELY A POSSIBLE VIEW, SO IN THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND DISCUSSED IN DETAIL, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT LD. SECOND PR. CIT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE INTERFERED WITH TH 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. 56. TO SUM UP, WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE SAID FACTS THAT THE SECOND AO HAS CONDUCTED ENQUIRY AS D I.E. SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FINDING OF SECOND PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ENQUIRY IS INCORRECT AND IS FLOWING FROM SUSPICI OUT BY THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO FAILED TO COLLECT TOTAL FACTS ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT SPELT OUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHAT HE MEANT BY ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS, AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW IN FORCE IN THIS AY 2012 THEN THE LD. PR. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR WHICH EVER ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/MATERIALS OR ISSUED SUMMONS OR ISSUED NOTICES AND WHICH ACCORDING TO SECOND LD. PR. CIT, THE AO OMITTED TO COLLECT AND THEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THOSE ACTIONS/DOCUMENTS WHICH HE COLLECTED IN THAT PROCESS GAVE RESULT TO A DIFFERENT FINDING OF FACT WHICH WILL TURN UPSIDE DOWN THE CLAIM THE ASSESSEE AND THUS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE ACTIONS/OMISSION OF AO IN CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION WAS ERRONEOUS, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT THE CASE BEFORE US. AND EQUALLY BAD IS THE BALD ALLEGATION/FAULT THAT SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED TOTAL FACTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BEING VAGUE AND BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND SO MERITLESS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AS DISCUSSED SUPRA, AND STILL IF THE SECOND PR. CIT HAD TO FIND THE ORDER OF SECOND AO ERRONEOUS FOR LACK OF ENQUIRY OR FOR NOT COLLECTING THE ENTIRE FACTS, THEN THE SECOND PR. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR THE ADDITIONAL FACTS WHICH HE THINKS THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE OR THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THEN EXPLAINED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AS TO WHAT EFF ASSESSMENT ORDER/REASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN OTHER WORDS THE IMPACT ON THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF FRAMING THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER DUE TO THE FAILURE OF SECOND AOS OMISSION TO COLLECT THE AD 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 HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING OUT ANY ADVERSE FACTUAL FINDING TO UPSET THE VIEW OF SECOND AO. SO WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE VAGUE ALLEGATION OF SECOND PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED THE FULL FACTS NECESSARY TO D CAPITAL & PREMIUM.SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND AO, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHO IS A QUASI- JUDICIAL OFFICE HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUAL ROLE AS AN INVESTIGATOR AS WELL AS AN ADJUDICATOR. LOOKING FROM ANOTHER ANGLE OF DOCTRINE OF MERGER CA WE NOTE FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT THE SECOND REVISIONAL ORDER DATED 14.03.2019 HAS SUBSTITUTED THE FIRST PR. CITS ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 23.08.2016 WITH HIS OWN ORDER WHICH HE 14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED SATISFIED AND WANTED TO INTERFERE INVOKING JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, HE HAS TO SHOW THAT THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO WAS FLAWED OR THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO WAS ON A WRONG DIRECTION OR ON WRON G ASSUMPTION OF FACT/LAW OR THAT THE AO MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN FACTUAL INVESTIGATION OR APPLIED THE LAW ERRONEOUSLY IN RESPECT OF THE FACTS COLLECTED BY HIM. FOR DOING SO, IN THE FACTS DISCUSSED SUPRA, HE SECOND (LD. PR. CIT) SHOULD HIMSELF HAD CONDUCTED A N ENQUIRY OR AT LEAST CONDUCTED A PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY AND WAS ABLE TO BRING SOME EVIDENCE/MATERIAL ON RECORD TO UPSET THE AOS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OR GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND THUS RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE DECISION OF AOS ENQUIRY WAS FAULTED OR WRONG AND IN THAT PROCESS TRIED TO SHOW THAT IT HAS RESULTED IN A VIEW WHICH IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW WHICH WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED HIS ACTION OF PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH UNFORT UNATELY IS NOT THE CASE. SINCE THE AOS VIEW ON THE FACTS COLLECTED AND DISCUSSED IS DEFINITELY A POSSIBLE VIEW, SO IN THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND DISCUSSED IN DETAIL, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT LD. SECOND PR. CIT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE INTERFERED WITH TH E AOS REASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IN ANY CASE CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW SINCE IT IS IN LINE WITH PLETHORA OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF THE SUBJECT. TO SUM UP, WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE SAID FACTS THAT THE SECOND AO HAS CONDUCTED ENQUIRY AS D IRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT ON THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT MATTER I.E. SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF SECOND PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ENQUIRY IS INCORRECT AND IS FLOWING FROM SUSPICI ON ONLY. AND AS DISCUSSED, THE ALLEGATION/FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO FAILED TO COLLECT TOTAL FACTS ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT SPELT OUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHAT HE MEANT BY TOTAL FACTS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS, AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW IN FORCE IN THIS AY 2012 THEN THE LD. PR. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR WHICH EVER ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/MATERIALS OR ISSUED SUMMONS OR ISSUED NOTICES AND COLLECTED THOSE FACTS WHICH ACCORDING TO SECOND LD. PR. CIT, THE AO OMITTED TO COLLECT AND THEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THOSE ACTIONS/DOCUMENTS WHICH HE COLLECTED IN THAT PROCESS GAVE RESULT TO A DIFFERENT FINDING OF FACT WHICH WILL TURN UPSIDE DOWN THE CLAIM THE ASSESSEE AND THUS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE ACTIONS/OMISSION OF AO IN CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION WAS ERRONEOUS, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT THE CASE BEFORE US. AND EQUALLY BAD IS THE BALD ALLEGATION/FAULT THAT SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED TOTAL FACTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BEING VAGUE AND BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND SO MERITLESS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AS DISCUSSED SUPRA, AND STILL IF THE SECOND PR. CIT HAD TO FIND THE ORDER OF SECOND AO ERRONEOUS FOR LACK OR FOR NOT COLLECTING THE ENTIRE FACTS, THEN THE SECOND PR. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR THE ADDITIONAL FACTS WHICH HE THINKS THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE OR THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THEN EXPLAINED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AS TO WHAT EFF ECT THOSE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WOULD HAVE MADE ON THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER/REASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN OTHER WORDS THE IMPACT ON THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF FRAMING THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER DUE TO THE FAILURE OF SECOND AOS OMISSION TO COLLECT THE AD DITIONAL DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND PR. CIT HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY SUCH EXERCISE OR EVEN SPELLED OUT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH ALL DOCUMENTS THE SECOND AO FAILED TO COLLECT FOR CONSIDERING THE TOTAL FACTS; AND EVEN IF WE PRESUME HE HAS CONDUCTED SUCH AN EXERCISE, THEN HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING OUT ANY ADVERSE FACTUAL FINDING TO UPSET THE VIEW OF SECOND AO. SO WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE VAGUE ALLEGATION OF SECOND PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED THE FULL FACTS NECESSARY TO D ECIDE THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM.SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND AO, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHO IS A JUDICIAL OFFICE HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUAL ROLE AS AN INVESTIGATOR AS WELL AS AN ADJUDICATOR. LOOKING FROM ANOTHER ANGLE OF DOCTRINE OF MERGER CA NVASSED BEFORE US, WE NOTE FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT 4 BY PASSING THE SECOND REVISIONAL ORDER DATED 14.03.2019 HAS SUBSTITUTED THE FIRST PR. CITS ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 23.08.2016 WITH HIS OWN ORDER WHICH HE ITA NO. 195/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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 G ASSUMPTION OF FACT/LAW OR THAT THE AO MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN FACTUAL INVESTIGATION OR APPLIED THE LAW ERRONEOUSLY IN RESPECT OF THE FACTS COLLECTED BY HIM. FOR DOING SO, IN THE FACTS DISCUSSED SUPRA, HE N ENQUIRY OR AT LEAST CONDUCTED A PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY AND WAS ABLE TO BRING SOME EVIDENCE/MATERIAL ON RECORD TO UPSET THE AOS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OR GENUINENESS OF 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 UNATELY IS NOT THE CASE. SINCE THE AOS VIEW ON THE FACTS COLLECTED AND DISCUSSED IS DEFINITELY A POSSIBLE VIEW, SO IN THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND DISCUSSED IN DETAIL, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION E AOS REASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IN ANY CASE CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW SINCE IT IS IN LINE TO SUM UP, WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE SAID FACTS THAT THE SECOND AO HAS IRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT ON THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT MATTER COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF SECOND PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ENQUIRY IS INCORRECT ON ONLY. AND AS DISCUSSED, THE ALLEGATION/FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO FAILED TO COLLECT TOTAL FACTS ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT SPELT OUT IN THE 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 COLLECTED THOSE FACTS WHICH ACCORDING TO SECOND LD. PR. CIT, THE AO OMITTED TO COLLECT AND THEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THOSE ACTIONS/DOCUMENTS WHICH HE COLLECTED IN THAT PROCESS GAVE RESULT TO A DIFFERENT FINDING OF FACT WHICH WILL TURN UPSIDE DOWN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE ACTIONS/OMISSION OF AO IN CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION WAS ERRONEOUS, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT THE CASE BEFORE US. AND EQUALLY BAD IS THE BALD ALLEGATION/FAULT THAT SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED TOTAL FACTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BEING VAGUE AND BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND SO MERITLESS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AS DISCUSSED SUPRA, AND STILL IF THE SECOND PR. CIT HAD TO FIND THE ORDER OF SECOND AO ERRONEOUS FOR LACK OR FOR NOT COLLECTING THE ENTIRE FACTS, THEN THE SECOND PR. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR THE ADDITIONAL FACTS WHICH HE THINKS THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE OR THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THEN EXPLAINED IN HIS IMPUGNED ECT THOSE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WOULD HAVE MADE ON THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER/REASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN OTHER WORDS THE IMPACT ON THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF FRAMING THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER DUE TO THE FAILURE OF SECOND DITIONAL DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND PR. CIT HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY SUCH EXERCISE OR EVEN SPELLED OUT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH ALL DOCUMENTS THE SECOND AO FAILED TO COLLECT FOR CONSIDERING 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 ECIDE THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM.SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND AO, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHO IS A JUDICIAL OFFICE HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUAL ROLE AS AN INVESTIGATOR AS WELL AS AN NVASSED BEFORE US, 4 BY PASSING THE SECOND REVISIONAL ORDER DATED 14.03.2019 HAS SUBSTITUTED THE FIRST PR. CITS ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 23.08.2016 WITH HIS OWN ORDER WHICH HE CANNOT DO SINCE THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER/RE 07.12.2016 WAS PURSUANT TO THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AND ON THE VERY SAME SUBJECT MATTER ON WHICH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS/INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN BY TH E FIRST LD. PR.CIT, WHICH DIRECTION SINCE HAVING BEEN COMPLIED BY THE AO, BRINGS INTO OPERATION THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER THE SUBJECT MATTER I.E. SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY. RESULTANTLY THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT, AGAIN CANNOT RAKE- UP TH REVISIONAL ORDER SPELLS OUT WHERE THE ERROR HAPPENED TO SECOND AO AS AN INVESTIGATOR OR ADJUDICATOR, WHICH EXERCISE THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT HAS NOT DONE, SO THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT CANNOT BE INVESTIGATION IN THE WAY HE THINKS IT PROPER ON THE VERY SAME SUBJECT ON WHICH MERGER HAS TAKEN PLACE BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER OF FIRST LD. PR. CIT. AND IF THIS PRACTICE IS ALLOWED, THEN THERE WILL BE NO END TO THE FINALITY TO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THE PARLIAMENT IN ITS WISDOM HAS BROUGHT IN SAFE SATISFIED STRICTLY BEFORE ASSUMPTION OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION 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. 13. IN THE CASE ON DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 23/08/2016 AND BASED ON THE SAME HAD ISSUED QUESTIONNAIRES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS IN ANNEXURE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. SUMMONS WERE ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANY M/S. LAKSHMI DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED. THE ACTIONS TAKEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT ARE GIVEN AT PAGE 5 TO 7 OF THE ASSESSMEN THE SAME DEMONSTRATES THAT THE DIRECTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF NON APPLICABILITY OF MIND OR NON THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWS THE DIRECTION OF THE NO REVISION CAN BE DONE U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TRAVELLED BEYOND THESE DIRECTIONS. 14. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.L. AHUJA (SUPRA), FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL: WHEN THE INCOME FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNDER IS THE POWER TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME OFFICER PASSES AN ORDER NOT IN HIS OWN DISCRETION OR WISDOM BUT FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, TO WHOM BOTH' OF THEM ARE SUBORDINATE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ISSUED THE IMPUGNED INSTRUCTIONS IN A CIRCULAR LETTER TO THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CANNOT TREAT TH PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE IT WOULD IN FACT AMOUNT TO REVIEWING HIS PREDECESSOR'S ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CANCEL THE SAID ORDER. 15. APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE CASE THE CASE, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY HOLD THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE REVISIONARY POWERS BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 21/02/2020, IS BAD IN LAW. HENCE, WE QUASH THE SAME. 16. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 15 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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/INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN E FIRST LD. PR.CIT, WHICH DIRECTION SINCE HAVING BEEN COMPLIED BY THE AO, BRINGS INTO OPERATION THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER THE SUBJECT MATTER I.E. SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY. RESULTANTLY THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT, AGAIN UP TH E SAME SUBJECT MATTER WITHOUT THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT IN THE SECOND REVISIONAL ORDER SPELLS OUT WHERE THE ERROR HAPPENED TO SECOND AO AS AN INVESTIGATOR OR ADJUDICATOR, WHICH EXERCISE THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT HAS NOT DONE, SO THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO AGAIN ASK THE AO TO START THE INVESTIGATION IN THE WAY HE THINKS IT PROPER ON THE VERY SAME SUBJECT ON WHICH MERGER HAS TAKEN PLACE BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER OF FIRST LD. PR. CIT. AND IF THIS PRACTICE IS ALLOWED, THEN THERE WILL BE NO END TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MEANING NO FINALITY TO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THE PARLIAMENT IN ITS WISDOM HAS BROUGHT IN SAFE - GUARDS, RESTRICTIONS & CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO BE SATISFIED STRICTLY BEFORE ASSUMPTION OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION . BE THAT AS IT MAY BE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT WITHOUT SATISFYING THE CONDITION PRECEDENT U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAS INVOKED THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND TIME), SO ALL HIS ACTIONS ARE AB INITIO VOID. HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AT PAGE 5, CONSIDERED THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 23/08/2016 AND BASED ON THE SAME HAD ISSUED QUESTIONNAIRES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS IN ANNEXURE SSMENT ORDER. SUMMONS WERE ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE HOLDING M/S. LAKSHMI DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED. THE ACTIONS TAKEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT ARE GIVEN AT PAGE 5 TO 7 OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME DEMONSTRATES THAT THE DIRECTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF NON APPLICABILITY OF MIND OR NON - VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWS THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CIT, IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, NO REVISION CAN BE DONE U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TRAVELLED BEYOND THESE DIRECTIONS. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.L. AHUJA (SUPRA), FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL: - WHEN THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER PASSES AN ORDER IN HIS OWN DISCRETION AND THAT ORDER IS FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNDER IS THE POWER TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX TO RECTIFY IT BUT WHEN AN INCOME OFFICER PASSES AN ORDER NOT IN HIS OWN DISCRETION OR WISDOM BUT FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX WHO FOLLOWS IN TURN THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, TO WHOM BOTH' OF THEM ARE SUBORDINATE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX WHO SUCCEEDS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ISSUED THE IMPUGNED INSTRUCTIONS IN A CIRCULAR LETTER TO THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CANNOT TREAT TH E ORDER OF THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER AS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE IT WOULD IN FACT AMOUNT TO REVIEWING HIS PREDECESSOR'S ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF TAX WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CANCEL THE SAID APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE CASE - LAW REFERRED ABOVE TO T THE CASE, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY HOLD THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE REVISIONARY POWERS BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 21/02/2020, IS BAD IN LAW. HENCE, WE QUASH THE SAME. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 195/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT OF THE SECOND AO DATED 07.12.2016 WAS PURSUANT TO THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AND ON THE VERY SAME SUBJECT MATTER ON WHICH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS/INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN E FIRST LD. PR.CIT, WHICH DIRECTION SINCE HAVING BEEN COMPLIED BY THE AO, BRINGS INTO OPERATION THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER THE SUBJECT MATTER I.E. SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY. RESULTANTLY THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT, AGAIN E SAME SUBJECT MATTER WITHOUT THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT IN THE SECOND REVISIONAL ORDER SPELLS OUT WHERE THE ERROR HAPPENED TO SECOND AO AS AN INVESTIGATOR OR ADJUDICATOR, WHICH EXERCISE THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT HAS NOT DONE, SO 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 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MEANING NO FINALITY TO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THE PARLIAMENT IN ITS GUARDS, RESTRICTIONS & CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO BE . 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 HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AT PAGE 5, CONSIDERED THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 23/08/2016 AND BASED ON THE SAME HAD ISSUED QUESTIONNAIRES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS IN ANNEXURE -A OF THE SSMENT ORDER. SUMMONS WERE ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE HOLDING M/S. LAKSHMI DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED. THE ACTIONS TAKEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE T ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME DEMONSTRATES THAT THE DIRECTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF NON - VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW. WHEN LD. PR. CIT, IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, NO REVISION CAN BE DONE U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.L. AHUJA (SUPRA), HAS APPROVED THE TAX OFFICER PASSES AN ORDER IN HIS OWN DISCRETION AND THAT ORDER IS FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNDER SECTION 263 TAX TO RECTIFY IT BUT WHEN AN INCOME -TAX OFFICER PASSES AN ORDER NOT IN HIS OWN DISCRETION OR WISDOM BUT FOLLOWING THE TAX WHO FOLLOWS IN TURN THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, TO WHOM BOTH' OF THEM ARE SUBORDINATE, THE TAX WHO SUCCEEDS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX WHO HAD ISSUED THE IMPUGNED INSTRUCTIONS IN A CIRCULAR LETTER TO THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT TAX OFFICER AS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE IT WOULD IN FACT AMOUNT TO REVIEWING HIS PREDECESSOR'S ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 263 . WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF TAX WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CANCEL THE SAID LAW REFERRED ABOVE TO T HE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY HOLD THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE REVISIONARY POWERS BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 21/02/2020, IS BAD IN LAW. HENCE, WE QUASH THE SAME. 4. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN, WE HOLD THAT THE REVISIONARY POWERS BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 31/01/2020, IS BAD IN LAW. HENCE, WE QUASH THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKA SD/- [ ABY. T. VARKEY ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 24.02.2021 {SC SPS} COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED C/O RAJESH MOHAN & ASSOCIATES UNIT NO. 18 5 TH FLOOR BAGATI HOUSE 34, GANESH CHANDRA AVENUE KOLKATA - 700 013 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 10(4) KOLKATA 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 16 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN, WE HOLD THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE REVISIONARY POWERS BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 31/01/2020, IS BAD IN LAW. HENCE, WE QUASH THE SAME. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKA TA, THE 24 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021. [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED C/O RAJESH MOHAN & ASSOCIATES 10(4) KOLKATA KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 195/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED EXERCISE OF THE REVISIONARY POWERS BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 31/01/2020, IS SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES