DCIT, Alwar V. M/S KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 203/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 20323114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Reasonable cause; Capital receipt
• Section: 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH: JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. MEENA) I.T.A. NO. 203/JP/2012 ASSTT. YEAR- 2006-07 PAN NO. AACCK 2235 Q THE D.C.I.T., M/S KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD., CENTRAL CIRCLE, VRS. C-9/25, SECTOR-8, ROHINI, ALWAR. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY :- SHRI A.K. KHANDELWAL. ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI NEERAJ JAIN. DATE OF HEARING : 25/08/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/08/2014 O R D E R PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/12/2011 OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A), CENTRAL, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE OF CIT(A) CENTRAL, JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND PREMI UM RECEIVED FROM THE COMPANIES OF WHICH IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AN D CREDITWORTHINESS HAD NOT BEEN PROVED. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE OF CIT(A), CENTRAL, JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND PREMI UM RECEIVED DESPITE THE FACT THAT AMOUNT HAD BEEN DEPOSITED AND /OR ITA 203/JP/2012 DCIT VS. M/S KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. 2 TRANSFERRED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BEFORE BEING TRANSFERRED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE OF CIT(A), CENTRAL, JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND PREMI UM RECEIVED RELYING UPON ADDRESSES GIVEN IN BANK STATEMENTS AND MASTER DETAIL OF ROC OF SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES DESPITE THE F ACT THAT THESE AGENCIES DO NOT CONDUCT AND FILED ENQUIRY AS DONE B Y THE DEPARTMENT AND MOREOVER THE ADDRESS PROOF DOES NOT ESTABLISH CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE OF CIT(A), CENTRAL, JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND PREMI UM RECEIVED FROM THE COMPANIES WITHOUT ESTABLISHING IDENTITY, GE NUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTION WHICH IS CONT RARY TO THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. OASIS HOSPITALITIES P VT. LTD. 333 ITR 119 (DEL.). 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND ALTER OR ADD TO ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL GIVEN ABOVE. 2. ALL THE FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INTERLINKED O N DELETION OF ADDITION OF CASH CREDITOR OF RS. 2 CRORES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE AC T). THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD INCREASED SHARE CAPITAL TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3 CRORES . THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND ASKED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, IDENTITY OF THE CASH CREDITOR AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CASH ITA 203/JP/2012 DCIT VS. M/S KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. 3 CREDITORS AND FILED COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY SUBSCRIBED AND PAID UP IN SHARE PREMIUM ACCOUNT. TH E ASSESSEE REPLIED AND FILED VARIOUS DETAILS ON THAT BASIS. HE DEPUTED HIS INSPECTOR TO ENQUIRE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND VERIFIED FROM T HE FIELD. THE INSPECTOR HAD REPORTED THAT THE SAID FOLLOWING SHARE HOLDER DO NOT EXIST AT GIVEN ADDRESS. S.NO. NAME OF THE INVESTOR SUBSCRIBING TO SHARE CAPITAL SHARE CAPITAL PREMIUM 1. M/S UPERCON MARKETING PVT. LTD. RS. 4,00,000 RS. 16,00,000 2. M/S MAGIC MULTIPLIER FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. RS. 4,00,000 RS. 16,00,000 3. M/S GROWTHWELL FINLEASE PVT. LTD. RS. 2,00,000 RS. 8,00,000 4. M/S MEGATRONICS SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. RS. 6,00,000 RS. 24,00,000 5. M/S VITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. RS. 8,00,000 RS. 32 ,00,000 6. M/S AGR FOREX & HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. RS. 6,00,000 RS. 24,00,000 7. M/S MANTECH LEASING & FINANCE PVT. LTD. RS. 4,00,000 RS. 16,00,000 8. M/S GOLD STONE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. RS. 6,00,000 RS. 24,00,000 TOTAL RS. 40,00,000/- RS. 1,60,00,000/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE AND RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE, THE APPELLA NT HAD FILED THE CURRENT DATE CONFIRMATION FROM THESE SUBSCRIBERS ALONGWITH OTHER DETAILS BUT CONCLUDED BY HIM THAT THESE CONFIRMATION COULD NOT RELIED UPON A S ON GIVEN ADDRESS, NO SUCH PERSONS WERE FOUND. THE GENUINENESS WAS DOUBTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HELD THAT, IT CAN BE PROVED ONLY BY PRO DUCING THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY BEFORE HIM. MERE CONFIRMATION, IN WHICH, EVE N THE SIGNATURES PUT IN BY THE PERSONS GIVING CONFIRMATION ARE NOT VERIFIAB LE, CANNOT BE RELIED UPON IN ITA 203/JP/2012 DCIT VS. M/S KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. 4 VIEW OF THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR AND THE CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE. HE FURTHER RELIED IN CASE OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOPHIA FINANCE LTD. REPORTED IN 205 ITR 98, WHERE IN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT CAPITAL RECEIPTS IN THE NAMES OF THE GENUINE TAX PA YERS INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF SUCH AN ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE ADDED RS. 2 CRORES AS UNDIS CLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE A.R. AN D HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN BRIEF, 8 PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES HAVE SUBSCRIBED TO THE SHARE CAPITAL ALONGWITH PREM IUM TOTALING RS. 2 CRORES, AS PER LIST GIVEN IN THE EAR LIER PARAS, WHICH IS UNDER DISPUTE. IN RESPECT OF ALL THESE COM PANIES, THE APPELLANT FILED NAMES, ADDRESS, PAN NO. AND ALSO TH E CURRENT CONFIRMATION. WHEN THE A.O. REPORTED TO THE APPELLA NT ABOUT THESE COMPANIES NOT FOUND AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN, AS REPORTED BY THE INSPECTOR, THE APPELLANT FURTHER FILED THE C OPY OF THE MASTER DETAILS OF THE COMPANY (FILED BY THE COMPANY WITH ROC) ON 14/12/2010. THESE MASTER DETAILS CLEARLY IN DICATED THE NAME, THE COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY AND A LSO THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY IS REGISTERED. THE COPY OF TH E INSPECTOR REPORT WAS NOT PROVIDED TO A.R. AND HENCE HE WAS NO T ABLE TO EXACTLY COMMENT ON THE INSPECTOR REPORT. NOW AFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS OVER, THE APPELLANT REQUESTED AND CO LLECTED THE REPORT AND HE HAS ELABORATELY AND SPECIFICALLY COMMENTED ON EACH OF THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE INSPECTOR REPORT . ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT IS SEEN THAT ARGUMENT OF THE APPELL ANT IN THIS REGARD IS CORRECT. BRIEFLY THE INSPECTOR REPORTED T HAT ADDRESS OF ITA 203/JP/2012 DCIT VS. M/S KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. 5 THREE COMPANIES NAMELY M/S UPERCON MARKETING PVT. L TD., M/S MAGIC MULTIPLIER SERVICES PVT. LTD AND M/S GROWTH W ELL FIN LEASE PVT. LTD. IS SHOWN AS JAWAHAR MARKET IN PUN JABI BAGH BUT THERE IS NO JAWAHAR MARKET IN PUNJABI BAGH. H OWEVER, IT IS NOTICED THAT JAWAHAR MARKET DID EXIST AS IS EVID ENT FROM THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THESE ABOVE REFERRED 3 SUBSCRIBERS COMPANIES, WHEREIN THE BANK STATEMENT S HOW AND INCLUDE THE ADDRESS AS JAWAHAR MARKET. IN RESPECT O F M/S MAGIC MULTIPLIER PVT. LTD., NEW ADDRESS OF THE REGI STERED OFFICE W.E.F. 10/6/2008 IS ALSO MENTIONED. 4.1 IN RESPECT OF OTHER 4 COMPANIES, NAMELY M/S VITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., M/S AGR FOREX & HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., M/S MANTE K LEASING AND FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND M/S GOLDSTONE FINANCIAL SERVI CES PVT. LTD, THE SAME ADDRESS AS GIVEN TO THE A.O. BY THE A.R., WAS AVAILABLE IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THESE COMPANIES AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE A.O. DIRECTLY FROM THESE CONCERNS/T HEIR BANKS. SIMILARLY, SAME ADDRESS WAS AVAILABLE IN THE ROC MAS TER DETAILS. EVEN THE SAME ADDRESS AS GIVEN TO A.O. WAS NOTICED I N THEIR I.T. RETURNS. HENCE CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT EXIST ENCE OF THESE COMPANIES IS NOT VERIFIABLE. MOREOVER, WHEN ALL THE SEVEN COMPANIES HAVE RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE, SENT BY A.O . AT THE SAME ADDRESS AND HAVE ALSO FURNISHED REPLY TO THE Q UERY RAISED BY THE A.O., THE A.O. WAS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED TO GI VE FINDING THAT COMPANIES ARE NOT EXISTING. MOREOVER, SINCE BANK AC COUNT OF THESE SUBSCRIBERS COMPANIES WERE ALSO CALLED BY THE A.O. AND WERE AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD OF A.O. WELL BEFORE PASS ING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN A.O. HAS NOT FOUND ANY AD VERSE FACTS RELATED TO SUBSCRIPTION OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MO NEY BY THESE SEVEN COMPANIES, A.O. WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED IN TRE ATING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM THESE COMPANIES AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY THAT TOO ONLY ON TH E BASIS OF INSPECTORS REPORT. 4.2 NOW COMING TO THE 8 TH COMPANY NAMELY M/S MEGATRONICS SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., IT IS SEEN THAT DUE TO CHANGE IN THE ADD RESS OF THE ITA 203/JP/2012 DCIT VS. M/S KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. 6 COMPANY, WHICH WERE EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD OF THE A. O. BY WAY OF ROC DETAILS FILED BY THE A.R. ON 14/12/2010, THE A.O. DID NOT RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM THE SAID COMPANY. ON THE O THER HAND, THE A.R. HAS ALREADY FILED THE CURRENT DATE CONFIRM ATION FROM THE SAID COMPANY ALONGWITH PAN AND OTHER DETAILS AS MENT IONED BY A.O. HIMSELF ON PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. CON SIDERING THESE FACTS AND THE FACT THAT DUE TO CHANGE IN ADDR ESS AND COMPANY WAS NOT FOUND AT THE EARLIER ADDRESS GIVEN, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE A.O. TO TREAT THIS COMPANY AS NON-EXISTENT AND FURTHER ALSO DOUBTING THE TRANSACTIONS. IN ANY CAS E, AS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS NOT EXPECTED FROM THE APPELLA NT LIMITED COMPANY TO FILE THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF T HE SUBSCRIBER PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BE FAULTED FOR NOT FILING THE BANK STATEMENT, AS CONFIRMATION ALON GWITH PAN NO. ETC. ARE USUALLY TREATED THE SUFFICIENT PROOF AND N ON-AVAILABILITY OF THE OLD ADDRESS WAS FOUND EXPLAINED DUE TO ADDRESS C HANGE. THUS THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING OF THE BAN K ACCOUNT OF THE SUBSCRIBER COMPANY AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AND THEREFORE FILING OF THE SAME AT APPEAL STAGE AS ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE IS ALLOWED TO BE ADMITTED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, SAME HAS BEEN FILED ONLY TO DOUBLY SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT TAKE N BY THE A.R. THE PRESENT A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT, HAS NOT GIVEN ANY ADVERSE COMMENT AFTER GOING THROUGH THE BANK STATEMENT OF M /S MEGATRONICS SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 4.3 IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND CO NSIDERING THE LEGAL POSITION ON THIS ISSUE, AS DECIDED BY VARIOUS COURTS, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE A.O. CONSIDERING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM ABOVE REFERRED 8 SUBSCRIBERS CO MPANIES AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY TOTALIN G TO RS. 2 CRORES, IS HEREBY DELETED. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED D.R. VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH SEIZURE OPERATION IN THIS CASE ON 17/9/2008. THERE WAS NO DI SCLOSURE DURING THE ITA 203/JP/2012 DCIT VS. M/S KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. 7 COURSE OF SEARCH. NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FO UND FROM THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCREASED SHARE CAPITAL BY RS. 3 CRORES OUT OF THIS ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2 CRORES ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT PROVED THE IDENTI TY FOR THE CASH CREDITORS, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES. HOWEVER, IT HAS SUBMITTED PAN NO., COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT, MASTER COPY OF COMPANY DETAILS OF ROC. HE FURTHER DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON V ARIOUS INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PAPER BOOK AND ARG UED THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF GAVE DIFFERENT ADDRESSES BEFORE THE DIFFEREN T AUTHORITIES LIKEWISE IT HAD ALSO GIVEN DIFFERENT ADDRESSES OF THE SUBSCRIBERS O F SHARE CAPITAL. THERE IS NO JAWAHAR MARKET IN PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI. HE PARTICU LARLY DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON PARTICULARS SUBMITTED FOR THE CAPITAL SUBSCRIBERS IN THE CASE OF MEGATRONICS SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. AND VITAL SERVICES PV T. LTD. AND ARGUED THAT AS PER RETURN SUBMITTED BY THEM, THEY DO NOT HAVE CRED ITWORTHINESS TO SUBSCRIBE THE SHARE CAPITAL WHICH HAS FACE VALUE OF 10 RUPEES AND PREMIUM AMOUNT OF RS. 40 PER SHARE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY ACCE PTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN HE HAS COTERMINOUS POWER AND HAD N OT VERIFIED THE DETAIL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 972/2009 CIT VS. KAMDH ENU STEEL AND OTHER COMPANY FOR A.Y. 2004-05 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE ITA 203/JP/2012 DCIT VS. M/S KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. 8 PARTICULARS OF REGISTRATION OF THE APPLICANT COMPAN Y, THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE SHARE APPLICANTS, BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS FROM WHICH PA YMENT THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE DELH I HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS INITIALLY ONUS. WITH TH E REGISTRATION OF THE COMPANY, THE IDENTITY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, THE APP LICANT COMPANY WAS HAVING BANK ACCOUNT, IT HAD MADE THE PAYMENTS THROU GH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. IT IS FURTHER HELD THAT IT WOULD NOT AUTOMA TICALLY FOLLOW THAT THE SAID MONEY BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE AND BECOME UNACCOUNTE D MONEY. ACCORDING TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE CORRECT ON THIS ASPECT. THE HONBLE COURT FELT THAT SOMETHING MORE, WHICH WAS NEC ESSARY AND REQUIRED TO BE DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS NOT DONE. THE A SSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CARRY HIS SUSPICION TO LOGICAL CONCLUSION BY FUR THER INVESTIGATION. THE LEARNED A.R. FURTHER DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON THE FINDINGS GIV EN BY THE HONBLE COURT THAT JUST BECAUSE OF THE CREDITOR/SHARE APPLICANT C OULD NOT BE FOUND AT THE ADDRESSES GIVEN, IT WOULD NOT GIVE THE REVENUE A RIG HT TO INVOKE SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL MATERIAL TO SUPPORT SUCH A MOVE. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT ALSO NOT ALLOWED TO REMIT B ACK THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRY ON ADDITI ON MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO SEND BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ONLY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW CAN BE DECIDED AND SECOND INNING CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO THE REVENUE. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO INDISCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AT THE BUSINESS ITA 203/JP/2012 DCIT VS. M/S KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. 9 PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSU ED NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, WHICH HAS BEEN SER VED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE INQU IRY FROM THE FIELD OFFICE AT ITS BACK WITHOUT INFORMING THEM AND USED THE INFORMA TION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BUT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY ON IT. THUS, THE APPELLANT HAD DISCHARGED HIS ONUS AND PROVED THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS BY FOLLOWING COMPANY MASTER DETAILS OF ROC, COPY OF PAN NO. CONF IRMATION. THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED THESE SUBSCRIPTIONS THROUGH BANKING CH ANNELS, THEREFORE, THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE. COPY OF RETURN FILED SHOW S THAT SUBSCRIBERS HAVE SUFFICIENT FUND TO APPLY THE SHARE SUBSCRIPTION. IT CAN BE PROVED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SUBSCRIBERS ON WHICH JAWAHAR MARKET HA D BEEN MENTIONED. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEA RNED CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2009-10, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND IN KAMDHENU GROUP CASES. THE APPELLANT FILED CONFIRMATI ON OF PAN NO., ADDRESSES OF THE SUBSCRIBERS & COMPANY MASTER DETAI L OF ROC. THE SHARE CAPITAL WAS RECEIVED THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNELS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER COLLECTED INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS SERVED ON ALL THE SUBSCRIBERS; THEREFORE, THESE ARE THE SUFFICIENT PR OOF OF IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SUBSCRIBERS. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE INSPECTORS REPORT, WHICH WAS AGAINST THE NATURAL JUSTICE AS THE ITA 203/JP/2012 DCIT VS. M/S KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. 10 COPY WAS PROVIDED ON 06/6/2011 TO THE APPELLANT WHERE AS ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS COMPLETED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON 26 /12/2010. JAWAHAR MARKET IS EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF SUBSCRIBER, ON WHICH THIS ADDRESS HAD BEEN MENTIONED AS WELL AS ON MASTER DETA IL OF ROC. THE SHARE CAPITAL WAS SUBSCRIBED IN F.Y. 2005-06 AND INQUIRIES WERE MADE IN F.Y. 2010- 11. THERE IS A TIME GAP OF NEAR ABOUT 5 YEARS, THE S HARE APPLICANT MIGHT HAVE CHANGED THEIR ADDRESSES, WHICH COULD BE VERIFIED FRO M THE ROC BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS FINDINGS, WHIC H HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY HIM. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON FURNISHING OF COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF M/ S MEGATRONICS SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON SIMILAR FACTS IN ITS FAVOUR IN A.Y. 2006-07. THE LEARNED CIT D.R. HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE FINDING S GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/08/2014 SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED : 28 TH AUGUST, 2014 * RANJAN ITA 203/JP/2012 DCIT VS. M/S KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. 11 COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR. 2. M/S KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD, NEW DELHI. 3. THE CIT (A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D/R GUARD FILE (I.T.A. NO. 203/JP/2012) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.