Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3403 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
11 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
17-02-2021
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
10-12-2020
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
12-03-2020
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA VIRTUAL COURT HEARING (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. GODARA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 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 IMOKABA JAMIR, CIT, D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : DECEMBER 10 TH , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 17 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. 20/02/2020, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, 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 FACTS OF THE CASE ARE BROUGHT OUT AT PAGE 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS IS EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE:- IN THE INSTANT CASE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.V. 2013-2014 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS AT RS.96,30,335/- ON 26.09.2013. THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S-143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 61 ON THE RETURNED INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS. ACCORDINGLY, STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) DATED 02.09.2014 AND U/S-142(1) DATED 09.07.2015 OF THE I.T. ACT, 61 WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ASKING TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES REQUIRED TO PRODUCE IN RESPECT OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. PURSUANT TO THE NOTICES MR. RAJESH AGARWAL, A/R APPEARED AND SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS FROM TIME TO TIME. FINALLY, THE CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S-143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 61 ON 04.02.2016 DETERMINING ASSESSED INCOME AT RS.5,04,94,158/- WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITION. 3. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED EACH PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE L PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 23/08/2016 CALLED FOR INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS. STATEMENT WAS ALSO RECORDED ON OATH FROM THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY HOLDING AS FOLLOWS: AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS BY THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES ESPECIALLY BANK STATEMENT AND STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER OATH THE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM BROUGHT INTO BOOKS OF A/C ABIDING BY THE PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTING AS PER GAAP BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN THIS CONTEXT, ALL KINDS OF ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN MADE WHATEVER IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT DEPARTMENTAL INSPECTOR ATTACHED TO THIS CHARGE WAS DEPUTED TO ENQUIRE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANY ON TEST CHECK BASIS WITH A DIRECTION TO COLLECT INFORMATION ABOUT ACTIVITIES ARE BEING PERFORMED BY THEM IF POSSIBLE. THE INSPECTOR HAS VISITED THREE/FOUR ADDRESSES OF THE SHARE ALLOTT COMPANIES AND SUBMITTED HIS ENQUIRY REPORTS SUPPORTING THE EXISTENCE OF THE ENTITIES/COMPANIES WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE RECORDS. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ALL THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES HAVE BEEN FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME REGULARLY WITH THEIR JURISDICTIONA L CHARGES. MOREOVER, IT IS ALREADY STATED ABOVE (IN SUPRA) THAT SHARE PREMIUM. IN FACT ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE ONLY CAN BE DRAWN IF ANYTHING FOUND WRONG FROM THE BOOKS OF A/C MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OR ANY THIRD PARTY CONFIRMATION AVAILABLE IN BL ACK AND WHITE THEN ONLY SHARE CAPITAL OR SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNT SUBSCRIBED BY THE SHARE HOLDING ENTITIES/COMPANIES WOULD BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AS PER PROVISION U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 61 AND MAY BE ENTANGLED ACCORDINGLY FOR TAXATION. OTHERWISE, IT IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE ANY CREDIT CLEARING TRANSACTION TRANSACTED THROUGH ELECTRONIC SYSTEM AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AND SHOULD NOT BE TAXED WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF I.T. ACT, 61. UNLESS DEPARTMENT SHOWING THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY SUBSCRIBERS ACTUALL Y EMANATED FROM COFFERS OF ASSESSEE TO BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. NO SUCH TRANSACTION HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED FROM THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE COLLECTED FROM VARIOUS ENQUIRIES ESPECIALLY IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF ANY SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES WHERE FROM ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES, REGISTERED WITH THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE, REGULARLY FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME STATING THE FAIRVIEW STATE OF AFFAIRS AND LETTER ISSUED U/S-133 (6) AND SUMMON/S ESTABLISHED THAT THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES HAVE AN ESTABLISHED IDENTITY. MOREOVER, THE DIRECTORS OF ALL THE COMPANIES HAVE RESPONDED TO SUMMONS U/S EVIDENCES AS ASKED FOR. MOREOVER, ADDRESSES HAVE BEEN AND FOUND CORRECT. STATEMENT OF ALL THE DIRECTORS OF SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES HAVE BEEN RECORDED AND DULY PLACED ON THE RECORDS. THE CASE IS HEARD AND DISCUSSED. 4. THE LD. PR. CIT, ISSUED A SHOWCAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 03/02/2020, PROPOSING TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT DT. 22/12/2017. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON 12/02/2020, THE LD. PR. CI T AT PARA 9 HELD AS FOLLOWS: 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED EACH PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE L PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 23/08/2016 CALLED FOR INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS. STATEMENT WAS ALSO RECORDED ON OATH FROM THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY HOLDING AS FOLLOWS: - CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS BY THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES ESPECIALLY BANK STATEMENT AND STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER OATH THE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM BROUGHT INTO ABIDING BY THE PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTING AS PER GAAP BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CONTEXT, ALL KINDS OF ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN MADE WHATEVER IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT DEPARTMENTAL INSPECTOR ATTACHED TO THIS WAS DEPUTED TO ENQUIRE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANY ON TEST CHECK BASIS WITH A DIRECTION TO COLLECT INFORMATION ABOUT ACTIVITIES ARE BEING PERFORMED BY THEM IF POSSIBLE. THE INSPECTOR HAS VISITED THREE/FOUR ADDRESSES OF THE SHARE ALLOTT COMPANIES AND SUBMITTED HIS ENQUIRY REPORTS SUPPORTING THE EXISTENCE OF THE ENTITIES/COMPANIES WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE RECORDS. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ALL THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES HAVE BEEN FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME REGULARLY WITH THEIR L CHARGES. MOREOVER, IT IS ALREADY STATED ABOVE (IN SUPRA) THAT SHARE IN FACT ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE ONLY CAN BE DRAWN IF ANYTHING FOUND WRONG FROM THE BOOKS OF A/C MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OR ANY THIRD PARTY CONFIRMATION AVAILABLE IN ACK AND WHITE THEN ONLY SHARE CAPITAL OR SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNT SUBSCRIBED BY THE SHARE HOLDING ENTITIES/COMPANIES WOULD BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AS PER PROVISION U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 61 AND MAY BE ENTANGLED ACCORDINGLY FOR TAXATION. IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE ANY CREDIT CLEARING TRANSACTION TRANSACTED THROUGH ELECTRONIC SYSTEM AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AND SHOULD NOT BE TAXED WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF I.T. ACT, 61. UNLESS DEPARTMENT SHOWING THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY Y EMANATED FROM COFFERS OF ASSESSEE TO BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. NO SUCH TRANSACTION HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED FROM THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE COLLECTED FROM VARIOUS ENQUIRIES ESPECIALLY IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF ANY SHARE WHERE FROM ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES, REGISTERED WITH THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE, REGULARLY FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME STATING THE FAIRVIEW STATE OF AFFAIRS AND LETTER ISSUED (6) AND SUMMON/S - 131 OF THE LT. ACT, 61 WERE DULY RECEIVED. SO, IT MAY BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES HAVE AN ESTABLISHED IDENTITY. MOREOVER, THE DIRECTORS OF ALL THE COMPANIES HAVE RESPONDED TO SUMMONS U/S FOR. MOREOVER, ADDRESSES HAVE BEEN VERIFIED WITH THE PAN DATABASE AND FOUND CORRECT. STATEMENT OF ALL THE DIRECTORS OF SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES HAVE BEEN RECORDED AND DULY PLACED ON THE RECORDS. THE CASE IS HEARD AND DISCUSSED. THE LD. PR. CIT, ISSUED A SHOWCAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 03/02/2020, PROPOSING TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT DT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON T AT PARA 9 HELD AS FOLLOWS: - ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED EACH PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE L D. PR. CIT PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 23/08/2016 CALLED FOR INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS. STATEMENT WAS ALSO RECORDED ON OATH FROM THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY. THEREAFTER, - CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS BY THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES ESPECIALLY BANK STATEMENT AND STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER OATH THE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM BROUGHT INTO ABIDING BY THE PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTING AS PER GAAP BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CONTEXT, ALL KINDS OF ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN MADE WHATEVER IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT DEPARTMENTAL INSPECTOR ATTACHED TO THIS WAS DEPUTED TO ENQUIRE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANY ON TEST CHECK BASIS WITH A DIRECTION TO COLLECT INFORMATION ABOUT ACTIVITIES ARE BEING PERFORMED BY THEM IF POSSIBLE. THE INSPECTOR HAS VISITED THREE/FOUR ADDRESSES OF THE SHARE ALLOTT EE COMPANIES AND SUBMITTED HIS ENQUIRY REPORTS SUPPORTING THE EXISTENCE OF THE ENTITIES/COMPANIES WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE RECORDS. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ALL THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES HAVE BEEN FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME REGULARLY WITH THEIR L CHARGES. MOREOVER, IT IS ALREADY STATED ABOVE (IN SUPRA) THAT SHARE IN FACT ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE ONLY CAN BE DRAWN IF ANYTHING FOUND WRONG FROM THE BOOKS OF A/C MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OR ANY THIRD PARTY CONFIRMATION AVAILABLE IN ACK AND WHITE THEN ONLY SHARE CAPITAL OR SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNT SUBSCRIBED BY THE SHARE HOLDING ENTITIES/COMPANIES WOULD BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AS PER PROVISION U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 61 AND MAY BE ENTANGLED ACCORDINGLY FOR TAXATION. IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE ANY CREDIT CLEARING TRANSACTION TRANSACTED THROUGH ELECTRONIC SYSTEM AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AND SHOULD NOT BE TAXED WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF I.T. ACT, 61. UNLESS DEPARTMENT SHOWING THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY Y EMANATED FROM COFFERS OF ASSESSEE TO BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. NO SUCH TRANSACTION HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED FROM THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE COLLECTED FROM VARIOUS ENQUIRIES ESPECIALLY IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF ANY SHARE WHERE FROM ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES, REGISTERED WITH THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE, REGULARLY FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME STATING THE FAIRVIEW STATE OF AFFAIRS AND LETTER ISSUED 131 OF THE LT. ACT, 61 WERE DULY RECEIVED. SO, IT MAY BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES HAVE AN ESTABLISHED IDENTITY. MOREOVER, THE DIRECTORS OF ALL THE COMPANIES HAVE RESPONDED TO SUMMONS U/S -131 WITH THE VERIFIED WITH THE PAN DATABASE AND FOUND CORRECT. STATEMENT OF ALL THE DIRECTORS OF SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES HAVE BEEN RECORDED AND DULY PLACED ON THE RECORDS. THE CASE IS HEARD AND DISCUSSED. THE LD. PR. CIT, ISSUED A SHOWCAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 03/02/2020, PROPOSING TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT DT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON 9. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND SUBMISSION MADE DURING THIS PROCEEDINGS AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUES POINTED OUT IN THE SHOW- CAUSE NEEDS VERIFICATION AS MERELY ACCEPTING SUBMISSION CALLING FOR LOGICALLY RELEVANT MATERIAL/EVIDENCES IN ORDER TO HAVE AN OVERVIEW OF TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO. FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ABOVE REFERRED ISSUE, RENDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER E RRONEOUS ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF ENQUIRY. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE POSITION OF LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL T EXPLANATION 2 OF SECTION 263 (1) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF ENQUIRY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT DATED 22.12.2017 PASSED U/S 263/143(3) IS SET ASIDE DE- NOVO ON SPECIFIC ISSUE AS OUTLINED IN ABOVE PA OFFICER TO CAUSE ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE ENQUIRY. THE AO. IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCES WHICH IT MAY CHOOSE TO RELY UPON FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM A A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF RICE AND CRORES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS YEAR, THE TURNOVER WAS RS.30.99 CRORES AND THE PROFIT WAS RS.54.30 LAKHS. I SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHARE CAPITAL AND FREE RESERVES OF RS. RS.8.07 CRORES, RESPECTIVELY, IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND THAT THE BREAKUP VALUE OF SHARES WAS OF FACE VALUE OF PS . HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND FREE RESERVES AT THE CLOSING OF THE YEAR HAD A BREAK UP VALUE OF SHARE HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD ISSUED 1, M/S. LAKSHMI DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED AT RS.338/ VALUE OF RS.10/- AND PREMIUM OF RS.328/ APPROVED FROM THE VALUER AND OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT TO ANY OUTSIDE PERSON/PARTY AND RESERVES OF M/S. LAKSHMI DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED WAS RS.14.65 CRORES. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE FACTS WITH DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE HE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND DESPITE THE SHARE HOLDER COMPANY BEING A GROUP COMPANY HAVING CREDITWORTHINESS AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SHARE PREMIUM 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 9. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND SUBMISSION MADE DURING THIS PROCEEDINGS AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUES POINTED OUT CAUSE NEEDS VERIFICATION AS MERELY ACCEPTING SUBMISSION CALLING FOR LOGICALLY RELEVANT MATERIAL/EVIDENCES IN ORDER TO HAVE AN OVERVIEW OF TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO. FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ABOVE REFERRED ISSUE, RENDERING THE ASSESSMENT RRONEOUS ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF ENQUIRY. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE POSITION OF LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPLANATION 2 OF SECTION 263 (1) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF ENQUIRY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT DATED 22.12.2017 PASSED U/S 263/143(3) IS SET ASIDE NOVO ON SPECIFIC ISSUE AS OUTLINED IN ABOVE PA RA WITH A DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO CAUSE ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE ENQUIRY. THE AO. IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCES WHICH IT MAY CHOOSE TO RELY UPON FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM A A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF RICE AND THAT IT HAD TURNOVER OF RS.57.98 CRORES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 AND RS.67.98 LAKHS PROFIT DURING THIS YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS YEAR, THE TURNOVER WAS RS.30.99 CRORES AND THE PROFIT WAS RS.54.30 LAKHS. I SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHARE CAPITAL AND FREE RESERVES OF RS. 24.59 LAKHS RS.8.07 CRORES, RESPECTIVELY, IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND THAT THE BREAKUP FACE VALUE OF RS.10/- AT THE BEGINNING OF THE Y EAR WAS RS.338.37 . HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND FREE RESERVES AT THE CLOSING OF THE A BREAK UP VALUE OF SHARE AT RS.352/- ON A FACE VALUE OF RS.10/ HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD ISSUED 1, 49,391SHARES TO M/S. LAKSHMI DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED AT RS.338/ - PER SHARE, WHICH INCLUDED FACE AND PREMIUM OF RS.328/ - . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARE VALUE GOT APPROVED FROM THE VALUER AND THAT ALL THESE SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO A GROUP CO AND NOT TO ANY OUTSIDE PERSON/PARTY . HE POINTED OUT THAT THE CAPITAL AND RESERVES OF M/S. LAKSHMI DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED WAS RS.14.65 CRORES. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE FACTS WITH DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE HE G OFFICER AND DESPITE THE SHARE HOLDER COMPANY BEING A GROUP COMPANY HAVING CREDITWORTHINESS AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SHARE PREMIUM ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 9. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND SUBMISSION MADE DURING THIS PROCEEDINGS AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUES POINTED OUT CAUSE NEEDS VERIFICATION AS MERELY ACCEPTING SUBMISSION WITHOUT CALLING FOR LOGICALLY RELEVANT MATERIAL/EVIDENCES IN ORDER TO HAVE AN OVERVIEW OF TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO. FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ABOVE REFERRED ISSUE, RENDERING THE ASSESSMENT RRONEOUS ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF ENQUIRY. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE POSITION OF LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. IS ERRONEOUS IN O THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPLANATION 2 OF SECTION 263 (1) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF ENQUIRY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT DATED 22.12.2017 PASSED U/S 263/143(3) IS SET ASIDE RA WITH A DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO CAUSE ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE ENQUIRY. THE AO. IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCES WHICH IT MAY CHOOSE TO RELY UPON FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM A ND PASS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IT HAD TURNOVER OF RS.57.98 14 AND RS.67.98 LAKHS PROFIT DURING THIS YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS YEAR, THE TURNOVER WAS RS.30.99 CRORES AND THE PROFIT WAS RS.54.30 LAKHS. I T WAS FURTHER 24.59 LAKHS AND RS.8.07 CRORES, RESPECTIVELY, IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND THAT THE BREAKUP EAR WAS RS.338.37 . HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND FREE RESERVES AT THE CLOSING OF THE ON A FACE VALUE OF RS.10/ - PER SHARE. 49,391SHARES TO PER SHARE, WHICH INCLUDED FACE . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARE VALUE GOT THESE SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO A GROUP CO NCERN . HE POINTED OUT THAT THE CAPITAL AND RESERVES OF M/S. LAKSHMI DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED WAS RS.14.65 CRORES. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE FACTS WITH DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE HE G OFFICER AND DESPITE THE SHARE HOLDER COMPANY BEING A GROUP COMPANY HAVING CREDITWORTHINESS AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SHARE PREMIUM WAS GENUINE AND SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND WAS OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT SET ASIDE THIS ASSESSMENT U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 28/03/2016, GIVING CERTAIN DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER . HE ARGUED THAT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDERTAKEN IN PURSUANCE OF THE ACT HAD METICULOUSLY FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT COMPLETED A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3)/263 OF THE A DIRECTOR OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANY APPEARED IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT AND THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SECOND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ARGUED THAT THESE DIRECT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO GO BEYOND THESE DIRECTIONS. FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT GO BEYOND THE DIRECTIONS OF THE PR. CIT, HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O AHUJA REPORTED IN [2001] 250 ITR 763 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 21/12/2020 AND GAVE A COMPARATIVE CHART ON THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE PROVE THAT THE LD. PR. CIT WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT IN HIS OBSERVATIONS IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS A CONSEQU OFFICER CANNOT TRAVEL BEYOND THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE LD. PR. CIT ARGUED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARRIVED AT A PLAUSIBLE DECISION BASED ON E IS BAD IN LAW. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. INFRACOM PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 896/KOL/2019, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012- 13, ORDER DT 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED AND SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND WAS ACCEPTED, THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING ESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT . THE LD. PR. CIT, SET ASIDE THIS ASSESSMENT U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 28/03/2016, GIVING CERTAIN DIRECTIONS . HE ARGUED THAT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDERTAKEN IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE HAD METICULOUSLY FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT COMPLETED A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3)/263 OF THE A CT . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANY APPEARED IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 131 OF BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FILED ALL NECESSARY DETAILS AND EVIDENCES IN GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND TO PROVE THE I CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES . HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH EACH OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT AND THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SECOND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ARGUED THAT THESE DIRECT IONS WERE METICULOU AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO GO BEYOND THESE DIRECTIONS. FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT GO BEYOND THE DIRECTIONS OF THE PR. CIT, JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O 250 ITR 763 (DELHI). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 21/12/2020 AND GAVE A COMPARATIVE CHART ON THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE SHOWCAUSE NOTICE TO PROVE THAT THE LD. PR. CIT WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT IN HIS OBSERVATIONS IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE - LAW FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT, IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS A CONSEQU ENCE TO A SECTION 263 ORDER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT TRAVEL BEYOND THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE LD. PR. CIT ARGUED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARRIVED AT A PLAUSIBLE DECISION BASED ON E XAMINATION OF EVIDENCE AND THAT THE REVISION LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE M/S. INFRACOM PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 896/KOL/2019, 13, ORDER DT . 18/03/2020 AND AMRITRASHI INFRA(P) LTD. VS ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED ACCEPTED, THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING . THE LD. PR. CIT, SET ASIDE THIS ASSESSMENT U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 28/03/2016, GIVING CERTAIN DIRECTIONS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A FRESH ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE HAD METICULOUSLY FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT AND HAD . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANY APPEARED IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 131 OF AND FILED ALL NECESSARY DETAILS AND EVIDENCES IN AND TO PROVE THE I DENTITY AND . HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH EACH OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT AND THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SECOND IONS WERE METICULOU SLY FOLLOWED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO GO BEYOND THESE DIRECTIONS. FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT GO BEYOND THE DIRECTIONS OF THE PR. CIT, JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. K.L. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 21/12/2020 AND GAVE A COMPARATIVE CHART ON THE R AND THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE SHOWCAUSE NOTICE TO PROVE THAT THE LD. PR. CIT WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT IN HIS OBSERVATIONS IN HIS ORDER U/S LAW FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT, IN AN , THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT TRAVEL BEYOND THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE LD. PR. CIT . HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS XAMINATION OF EVIDENCE AND THAT THE REVISION RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE M/S. INFRACOM PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 896/KOL/2019, AMRITRASHI INFRA(P) LTD. VS PR.C.I.T.-4 IN ITA NO. 838/KOL/2019, ORDER DT. 12/08/2020 IS SQUARELY COVERED IN HIS FAVOUR. 8.1. EVEN ON MERITS, HE SUBMITTED THAT BASED ON THE FACTS NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT, IN THIS CASE AND THE LD. PR. CIT CASE PASSED THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DIRECTING ADDITION WHEREVER SHARE CAP RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY FROM A GROUP COMPANY AND WHERE THE SHARE PREMIUM CHARGED IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED BASED OF THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT BE QUASHED. 9. THE LD. D/R, ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY APPLIED HI S MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAD SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE REFERRED TO PARA 5 OF THE LD. PR. CITS ORDER AT PAGE 11 AND SUBMITTED THAT A CLEAR FIN DING HAS BEEN GIVEN THAT THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WERE NOT EXAMINED JUDICIOUSLY AND THAT THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH ENQUIRIES MADE TO REACH A LOGICAL CONCLUSION. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSSED ABOUT THE SHARES ISSUED AND SHARES SUBSCRIB ED AND HAD ALSO NOT WORKED OUT THE SHARES ISSUED WITH PREMIUM AND SHARES ISSUED ON FACE VALUE WITHOUT PREMIUM. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED HURRIEDLY AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED IN A CASUAL MANNER AND WITHOUT FO PROCEEDINGS. HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND SUPPORTED THE SAME. HE RELIED ON THE CASE HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. PR. CIT CAN ASSESSING OFFICER OCCUPIES THE POSITION OF AN INVESTIGATOR AND AN ADJUDICATOR DISCHARGE OF HIS FUNCTIONS AND WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT PROPERLY DISCHARGE HIS FUNCTIONS, IT WOULD BE A CASE OF THE ASSE THE EXTENT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT BE UPHELD. 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED IN ITA NO. 838/KOL/2019, ORDER DT. 12/08/2020 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN HIS FAVOUR. EVEN ON MERITS, HE SUBMITTED THAT BASED ON THE FACTS NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE OF THE ACT, IN THIS CASE AND THE LD. PR. CIT , WITHOUT RELEVANCE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE PASSED THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DIRECTING ADDITION WHEREVER SHARE CAP RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY FROM A GROUP COMPANY AND WHERE THE SHARE PREMIUM PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED BASED OF THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT BE THE LD. D/R, ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY COLLECTED INFORMATION AND NOT S MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAD SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE REFERRED TO PARA 5 OF THE LD. PR. CITS ORDER AT PAGE 11 AND SUBMITTED DING HAS BEEN GIVEN THAT THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WERE NOT EXAMINED JUDICIOUSLY AND THAT THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH ENQUIRIES MADE TO REACH A LOGICAL CONCLUSION. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSSED ABOUT THE SHARES ED AND HAD ALSO NOT WORKED OUT THE SHARES ISSUED WITH PREMIUM AND SHARES ISSUED ON FACE VALUE WITHOUT PREMIUM. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED HURRIEDLY AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED IN A CASUAL MANNER AND WITHOUT FO LLOWING THE PROCEDURES OF QUASI JUDICIAL HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND SUPPORTED THE SAME. HE RELIED ON THE CASE - LAW CITED BY THE LD. PR. CIT IN HIS ORDER THAT THE LD. PR. CIT CAN INVOKE HIS POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT ASSESSING OFFICER OCCUPIES THE POSITION OF AN INVESTIGATOR AND AN ADJUDICATOR HIS FUNCTIONS AND WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT PROPERLY IT WOULD BE A CASE OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER BEING PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE EVEN ON MERITS, HE SUBMITTED THAT BASED ON THE FACTS NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE , WITHOUT RELEVANCE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE PASSED THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DIRECTING ADDITION WHEREVER SHARE CAP ITAL IS RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY FROM A GROUP COMPANY AND WHERE THE SHARE PREMIUM PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED BASED OF THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT BE THE LD. D/R, ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND INFORMATION AND NOT S MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAD SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE REFERRED TO PARA 5 OF THE LD. PR. CITS ORDER AT PAGE 11 AND SUBMITTED DING HAS BEEN GIVEN THAT THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WERE NOT EXAMINED JUDICIOUSLY AND THAT THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH ENQUIRIES MADE TO REACH A LOGICAL CONCLUSION. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSSED ABOUT THE SHARES ED AND HAD ALSO NOT WORKED OUT THE SHARES ISSUED WITH PREMIUM AND SHARES ISSUED ON FACE VALUE WITHOUT PREMIUM. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED HURRIEDLY AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT LLOWING THE PROCEDURES OF QUASI JUDICIAL HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT LAW CITED BY THE LD. PR. CIT IN HIS ORDER . INVOKE HIS POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OCCUPIES THE POSITION OF AN INVESTIGATOR AND AN ADJUDICATOR IN HIS FUNCTIONS AND WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT PROPERLY SSMENT ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS TO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, P BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS OFFERED INCOME U/S 115JB OF THE ACT, BY DECLARING BOOK PROFITS WHICH IS DOING BUSINESS IN THE REAL SENSE. HE ALSO OF LAUNDERING OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE GARB OF SHARE PREMIUM. HE GAVE A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE HAD EVERY POTENTIAL FOR THIS JUSTIFIES THE SHARE PREMIUM 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 RECORDS THA 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 RECORDED THAT DEPARTMENTAL INSPECTOR WAS 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 SHAREHO 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 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. PR. CIT THAT THIS I S 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 ENQUIRIES WERE 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 HIM HAD HE BEEN THE A REVISIONS. THE RECORDINGS OF THE LD. PR. CIT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, P ERUSAL 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 U/S 115JB OF THE ACT, BY DECLARING BOOK PROFITS 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 POTENTIAL FOR APPRECIATING 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 RECORDS THA T SUMMONS WERE ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANY M/S. LAKSHMI DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED, PERSONAL APPEARANCE. HE GAVE A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANY IS IN INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES AND HAD UNDERTAKEN SEVERAL TRANSACTIO NS OF INVESTMENTS. HE RECORDED THAT DEPARTMENTAL INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED FOR INSPECTION AND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO GAVE DETAILS OF HIS FINDINGS OF THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE SHAREHO LDER 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. 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 THIS FINDING IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE LD. S 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 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 HAD HE BEEN THE A SSESSING OFFICER . THIS IS NO GROUND FOR MAKING A REVISIONS. THE RECORDINGS OF THE LD. PR. CIT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND ERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES ORDER RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS AND THIS IS A COMPANY THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE OF LAUNDERING OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE GARB OF SHARE PREMIUM. HE GAVE A SPECIFIC APPRECIATING IN FUTURE AND . 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 T SUMMONS WERE ISSUED U/S 131 M/S. LAKSHMI DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED, FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. HE GAVE A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANY IS IN NS OF INVESTMENTS. HE FOR INSPECTION AND THAT THE REPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO GAVE DETAILS OF HIS FINDINGS LDER 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 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 IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE LD. S 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 IN THE OPINION OF THE LD. PR. CIT, THE 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 . 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 TRANSAC 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 HIM AND CIT FURTHER COMMENTS AS FOLLOWS: THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT TO BE EQUATE TO RUPEES OR PAISA MERELY. THEN, H E GOES ON TO STATE THAT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE ADMINISTRATION. WITH LAW AS CAN BE SEEN FROM VARIOUS JUDGMENTS WHICH ARE DISMISSED BY US. 12. THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUM AMRITRASHI INFRA PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT IN ITA NO. 838/KOL/2019, DT. 12/08/2020 FOLLOWS:- 46. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORE CASE IN HAND AND FIND OUT WHETHER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC 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 VIEW OR IT CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW IN LAW. WE ON A CONJOINT READING OF THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE FIRST PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 AND THE REASSESSMENT /SECOND ASSESSMENT OF THE AO DATED 07.12.2016, THE FOLLOWING FACT 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: (I) AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS; (II) COPY OF FORM FILED WITH THE ROC; (III) COPY OF PAN CARD OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY; (IV) DETAILS AND COPY OF SHARE (V) BANK STATEMENT REFLECTING THE TRANSACTION; (VI) RECORDS RELATING TO INVESTORS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. 47. WE NOTE THAT THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT IN HIS FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER, FOUND TH IN THE FIRST ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THOUGH HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS NOT EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE AO. THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AT PARA (4) OF HIS FIRST REVISIONAL 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED EXAMINED THE JUSTIFICATION OF FIXING OF SHARE PREMIUM OR THAT HAS NOT EXAMINED OR ENQUIRED INTO THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TRANSAC TION, AND THAT HE HAS NOT ENQUIRED THE POSSIBILITY OF THE TRANSACTION BEING SHAM AND THE ACTIVITY BEING A CASE OF LAUNDERING OF IS AGAINST FACTS. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IN DETAIL DESCRIBED THE ENQUIRIES MADE BY HIM AND HIS FINDINGS ON SUCH ENQUIRIES CIT FURTHER COMMENTS AS FOLLOWS: - THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT TO BE EQUATE TO RUPEES OR PAISA MERELY. E 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. THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUM STANCES, IN THE CASE OF AMRITRASHI INFRA PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT IN ITA NO. 838/KOL/2019, DT. 12/08/2020 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 OR DER IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW OR IT CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW IN LAW. WE ON A CONJOINT READING OF THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE FIRST PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 AND THE REASSESSMENT /SECOND ASSESSMENT OF THE AO DATED 07.12.2016, THE FOLLOWING FACT (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; RECORDS 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 TH IN THE FIRST ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THOUGH HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS NOT EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE AO. THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AT PARA (4) OF HIS FIRST REVISIONAL ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED EXAMINED THE JUSTIFICATION OF FIXING OF SHARE PREMIUM OR THAT HAS NOT EXAMINED OR TION, AND THAT HE HAS NOT ENQUIRED THE POSSIBILITY OF THE TRANSACTION BEING SHAM AND THE ACTIVITY BEING A CASE OF LAUNDERING OF IS AGAINST FACTS. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IN DETAIL HIS FINDINGS ON SUCH ENQUIRIES . THE LD. PR. THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT TO BE EQUATE TO RUPEES OR PAISA MERELY. THE COMMISSIONER MAY THINK THAT THE ORDER IS ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS CAN BE SEEN FROM VARIOUS JUDGMENTS WHICH ARE DISMISSED BY US. STANCES, IN THE CASE OF AMRITRASHI INFRA PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT IN ITA NO. 838/KOL/2019, DT. 12/08/2020 , HELD AS CITED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, LET US EXAMINE THE 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 DER IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW OR IT CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW IN LAW. WE ON A CONJOINT READING OF THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE FIRST PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 AND THE REASSESSMENT /SECOND ASSESSMENT OF THE AO DATED 07.12.2016, THE FOLLOWING FACT S (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 RECORDS 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 TH AT AO IN THE FIRST ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THOUGH HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS NOT EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE AO. THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AT PARA (4) OF HIS FIRST REVISIONAL OR DER HAS CLEARLY MADE A FINDING THAT FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED IN A VERY CASUAL MANNER AND HURRIED MANNER FLOUTING ALL ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES. DISCHARG ED 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 D ISCUSSING THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE ON WHICH ADVERSE INFERENCE WAS DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO FOR NOT BOTHERING TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE OR TO BRING ON RECORD ANYTHING AGAINST THE ASSES SEE 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 ORIGIN AL 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 ASSESS 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 I NVESTOR. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION, ENTITY OF INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITI NG FOR TIME BAR LIMIT. WITH THE AFORESAID SPECIFIC DIRECTION, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT HAS SET ASIDE THE FIRST ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26 49. SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND AO WAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT TO CARRY OUT THE F OLLOWINGS ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DE MEANS THE SECOND AO IS FREE TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AFRESH, HOWEVER, HE HAS TO DO THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC ACTIONS AS DIRECTED IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLIED FOR SHARES IN ASSESSE 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. NO . NAME OF COMPANY 1. M/S. K. R. OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 2. M/S. KAKRANIA TRADING PVT. LTD. 3. M/S. AMBALATRAFIN PVT. LTD. 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED DER HAS CLEARLY MADE A FINDING THAT FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED IN A VERY CASUAL MANNER AND HURRIED MANNER FLOUTING ALL ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES. THE ASSESSEE HAD ED ITS ONUS BY FURNISHING/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO .FURTHER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT MAINLY FOUND FAULT WITH THE AOS ORDER FOR NON - ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE SHAREHOLDERS. THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO S ORDER ISCUSSING 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 SEE AND THUS ACCORDING TO HIM, THE AO WITH A PRE - DETERMINED MIND HAS SIMPLY JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE FIRST LD. PR. AL 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 ASSESS EE. 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 NVESTOR. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION, ENTITY OF INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS . (EMPHASIS GIVEN BY US). HE ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED NG FOR TIME BAR LIMIT. WITH THE AFORESAID SPECIFIC DIRECTION, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT HAS SET ASIDE THE FIRST ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26 - 03 SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND AO WAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. OLLOWINGS ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DE - NOVO ASSESSMENT WHICH MEANS THE SECOND AO IS FREE TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AFRESH, HOWEVER, HE HAS TO DO THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC ACTIONS AS DIRECTED IN RESPECT OF SHARE - APPLICANTS WHO APPLIED FOR SHARES IN ASSESSE E- COMPANY. THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF LD. PR CIT TO AO TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT AO TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS; IV)THE AO TO EXAMINE THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS; CIN PAN M/S. K. R. OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. U51109WB1994PTC061965 AACCK0101B M/S. KAKRANIA TRADING PVT. U70101WB1994PTC062137 AABCK151611 M/S. AMBALATRAFIN PVT. LTD. U67120WB1995PTCO74397 AACCA1184G ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED DER HAS CLEARLY MADE A FINDING THAT FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED IN A VERY CASUAL 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 ISCUSSING 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. AL 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 NVESTOR. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION, . (EMPHASIS GIVEN BY US). HE ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED NG FOR TIME BAR LIMIT. WITH THE AFORESAID SPECIFIC DIRECTION, THE FIRST 03 -2015. SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND AO WAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. NOVO ASSESSMENT WHICH MEANS THE SECOND AO IS FREE TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AFRESH, HOWEVER, HE HAS APPLICANTS WHO COMPANY. THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF LD. PR CIT TO AO TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT IV)THE AO TO EXAMINE THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS; ITR FILED FOR AY 2012-13 AACCK0101B YES AABCK151611 YES AACCA1184G YES 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 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 (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 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 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. 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AT THE EARLIEST WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE 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 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 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 U52190WB2011PTC157073 AAPCS2068E CONSTRUCTION U45400WB2011PTC170957 AAQCS7848M U74999WB2012PTC 173749 AARCS0094C M/S. FLOWTOP AGENCY PVT. LTD. U52190WB2012PTC 173352 AABCF9036D M/S. SUKHSAGAR RESIDENCY U45400WB2011PTC170958 AARCS1553N M/S. KAMALDHAN DEVELOPERS U45400WB2011PTC170944 AAECK6810D M/S. LABHDHANIMPEX PVT. LTD. U51909WB2011PTC171524 AACCL2111J M/S. SUBHSREEIMPEX PVT. LTD. U51909WB2011PTC171513 AARCS1845D M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS U51109WB2005PTC102343 AAECM224E U51109WB2005PTC102121 AAICS8900L ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 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 SECOND 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 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, AUDITED 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 AAPCS2068E YES AAQCS7848M YES AARCS0094C YES AABCF9036D YES AARCS1553N YES AAECK6810D YES AACCL2111J YES AARCS1845D YES AAECM224E YES AAICS8900L YES 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- 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 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 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 TO THE 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: 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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 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 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 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 (REFER INTER I). SO, THE CLEAR ASSERTION OF THE SECOND AO IN HIS ORDER THAT 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 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: ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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 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 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 (REFER INTER - I). SO, THE CLEAR ASSERTION OF THE SECOND AO IN HIS ORDER THAT 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 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. 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 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 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 NAME M/S. K. R. OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. M/S. KAKRANIA TRADING PVT. LTD. M/S. AMBALATRAFINPVT. LTD. M/S. SUBHIKSHA PVT. LTD. M/S. SHIVARSHI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. M/S. SHIVASHIV PVT. LTD. M/S. FLOWTOP AGENCY PVT. LTD. M/S. SUKH SAGAR RESIDENCY PVT. LTD. M/S. KAMALDHAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. M/S. LABHDHAN IMPEX PVT. LTD. M/S. SUBHSREEI MPEX PVT. LTD. M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. M/S. SRISTI SALES PVT. LTD. 53. SO, FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CHART, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND THE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF SECOND AO THAT THEY (SHARE SUBSCRIBERS) HAVE ENOUGH NET WORTH TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES PURSU ANT TO THE AOS NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT HAVE FURNISHED THEIR RESPECTIVE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THE AFORESAID FACTS ARE CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE AND MOREOVER THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE SECOND AO THE SOURCE 11 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT CAPITAL & RESERVES PAGE 8 PAPER BOOK-2 RS.66,77,47,921 (PAGE 22 PB- 2 M/S. KAKRANIA TRADING PVT. PAGE 45 PAPER BOOK-2 RS.66,52,71,914 (PAGE 62 PB- 2 PAGE 88 PAPER BOOK-2 RS.624,711,003 (PAGE 101 PB 2 ) PAGE 115 PAPER BOOK- 2 RS.222,397,317 (PAGE 128 PB - 2 M/S. SHIVARSHI CONSTRUCTION PAGE 146PAPER BOOK-2 RS.53,89,95,046 ( PAGE 153 PB - 2 PAGE 170PAPER BOOK-2 RS.14,29,56,146 (PAGE 178 PB - 2 M/S. FLOWTOP AGENCY PVT. LTD. PAGE 193PAPER BOOK-2 RS.15,38,94,946 (PAGE 200 PB - 2 M/S. SUKH SAGAR RESIDENCY PAGE 212 PAPER BOOK-2 RS.56,18,93,960 (PAGE 220 PB - 2 M/S. KAMALDHAN DEVELOPERS PAGE246-247PAPER BOOK-2 RS.56,18,94,080 (PAGE 254 PB - 2 M/S. LABHDHAN IMPEX PVT. PAGE 270PAPERBOOK-2 RS.56,18,94,080 (PAGE 277 PB - 2 M/S. SUBHSREEI MPEX PVT. LTD. PAGE 290 OF PAPER BOOK RS.76,60,93,960 (PAGE 297 PB - 2 M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS - RS.1,54,58,399 (PAGE 313 PB - 2 - RS.1,12,25,632 (PAGE 336 PB - 2 SO, FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CHART, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND THE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF SECOND AO THAT THEY (SHARE SUBSCRIBERS) HAVE ENOUGH NET WORTH TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBING ANT TO THE AOS NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT HAVE FURNISHED THEIR RESPECTIVE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THE AFORESAID FACTS ARE CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE AND MOREOVER THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE SECOND AO THE SOURCE ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED SUM INVESTED IN ASSESSEES BUSINESS RS.66,77,47,921 2 ) RS.1,30,000/- RS.66,52,71,914 2 ) RS.1,39,00,000/- RS.624,711,003 PB - RS.4,40,00,000/- RS.222,397,317 2 ) RS.45,00,000/- RS.53,89,95,046 2 ) RS.4,66,00,000/- RS.14,29,56,146 2 ) RS.6,55,00,000/- RS.15,38,94,946 2 ) RS.4,49,00,000/- RS.56,18,93,960 2 ) RS.2,31,00,000/- RS.56,18,94,080 2 ) RS.12,54,00,000/- RS.56,18,94,080 2 ) RS. 3,80,00,000/- RS.76,60,93,960 2 ) RS. 2,76,00.000/- RS.1,54,58,399 2 ) RS. 50,00,000/- RS.1,12,25,632 2 ) RS.50,00,000/- SO, FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CHART, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND THE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF SECOND AO THAT THEY (SHARE SUBSCRIBERS) HAVE ENOUGH NET WORTH TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBING ANT TO THE AOS NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT HAVE FURNISHED THEIR RESPECTIVE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THE AFORESAID FACTS ARE CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE AND MOREOVER THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE SECOND AO THE SOURCE FROM 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 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 GENUINENESS 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 PR. CIT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF SECOND AO TO JUSTIFY HIS INTERVENTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT AND WHICH WOULD HAVE UPSET THE DECISION OF THE SECOND AOS FACTUAL VIEW ON THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINITY OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION. IN SUCH A SCENARIO, THE SECOND AOS VIEW BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO BY HIM IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND IN CONSONANCE WITH JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS (SUPRA) WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS/ EXAMINE EACH SHARE SUBSCRIBE (I) ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 12 TO 37 OF SHARE APPLICANT WHICH IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, AND WHICH HAS PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. AACCK0101B ON 31.03.2012 (IN TOTAL) RS.66,77,47,921/ ASSESSEE- COMPANY INCLUDING THE SHARE PREMIUM COMES TO RS.1,30,00 ,000/ AND DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF RS.1,05,00,000/ NEFT AND RS.25,00,000/ 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 ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APP INCOME- TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE A THE ASSESSEE THE ACT. (II) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN U70101WB1994PTC062137 31.3.2012RS.66,52,71,914/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL FOUR TIMES ON 01.03.2012 RS.30,00,000 THROUGH NEFT; AND BY CHEQUE ON 12 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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 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 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 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 AACCK0101B AND CIN U51109WB1994PTC061965 AND ITS NET ON 31.03.2012 (IN TOTAL) - SHARE CAPITAL & RESERVE IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.66,77,47,921/ - (PB PAGE 22) AND THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE COMPANY INCLUDING THE SHARE PREMIUM COMES TO ,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 37AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APP LICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. 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 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 IS U70101WB1994PTC062137 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012RS.66,52,71,914/ - (PB- PAGE62) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,39,00,000/- 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 ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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 PLACED M/S. K.R. OVERSEAS PVT. LIMITED WHICH IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, AND WHICH HAS PERMANENT ACCOUNT AND ITS NET -WORTH AS SHARE CAPITAL & RESERVE IS TO THE TUNE OF (PB PAGE 22) AND THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE COMPANY INCLUDING THE SHARE PREMIUM COMES TO . THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL TOOK PLACE AS ON 01.03.2012 BY AS ON 06.03.2012. THE BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT OF THE COMPANY IS FILED AND THE SHARE APPLICATION FORM, ITR ACKNOWLEDGMENT, BANK STATEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT P. B PAGE 37AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO LICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED PPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF 38 TO 77 , THE DETAILS IT IS A PRIVATE AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON PAGE62) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL FOUR TIMES ON 01.03.2012 RS.30,00,000 THROUGH NEFT; AND BY CHEQUE ON 02.03.2012A 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 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 APPLICANT BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THA FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE 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 THE PB- II. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RET 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 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 COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN U52190WB2011PTC157073 31.3.2012 RS.22,23,97,317/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 45,00,000/ 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 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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 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 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 - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (III) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK -2 PAGES 78 TO 111 DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. AMBALA TRAFIN PVT. LTD . IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AACCA1184G AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U67120WB1995PTCO74397 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.62,47,11,003 - (PB-PAGE101 ) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO 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 II. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RET 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 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 RIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAPCS2068E AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U52190WB2011PTC157073 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.22,23,97,317/ - (PB- PAGE 128.) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 45,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 02.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.45 LAKHS THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, 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 ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED ; 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 FINANCIAL PAGE 39 TO 77. THIS SHARE APPLICANT Y FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH T THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD COMPANY AFTER 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 IN 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 THE 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 RIVATE LIMITED AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON PAGE 128.) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 02.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.45 LAKHS THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION 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 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 U45400WB2011PTC170957 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS 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 29.03.2012 RS.4,66,00,000/ CHEQUE. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEM EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB- PAGE 139 TO 159 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOU FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLIC FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONU 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 SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (VI ) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK PAGES DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS0094C AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U74999WB2012PTC 173749 AND THE NET WORTH OF THI 31.3.2012 RS.14,29,56,146/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,55,00,000/ APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03.2012 RS.6,55,00,000/ 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 THIS SHARE APPLIC 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 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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 U45400WB2011PTC170957 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.53,89,95,046/ - (PB- PAGE 153) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 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 ACKNOWLEDGEM EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN PAGE 139 TO 159 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOU RCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLIC ANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME- TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONU PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. ) 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 . IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS0094C AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U74999WB2012PTC 173749 AND THE NET WORTH OF THI S COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.14,29,56,146/ -(PB- PAGE 178) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,55,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03.2012 RS.6,55,00,000/ - THROUGH CHEQ UE. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB - PAGE 161 TO 184 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLIC ANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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 NUMBER IS U45400WB2011PTC170957 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 THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03.2012 RS.4,66,00,000/ -THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEM ENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN PAGE 139 TO 159 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS RCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONU S TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER 2, 160 TO 184 THE . IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS0094C AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS S COMPANY AS ON PAGE 178) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON UE. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL PAGE 161 TO 184 IN THE PB. ANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASS 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 SEC TION 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 1 31.3.2012 RS.15,38,94,946/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,49,00,000/ APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 30.03.201 2 RS.4,49,00,000/ 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 SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCO SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTH INESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - THE ACT. (VIII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PA 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 MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,31,00,000/ SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.3.2012 RS. 2,31,00,000/ 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 SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETU ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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 ASS ESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER TION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (VII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2, PAGES 185 TO 206 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. FLOWTOP AGENCY PVT. LTD . IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AABCF9036D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U52190WB2012PTC 1 73352AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.15,38,94,946/ - (PB- PAGE 200 ) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,49,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 2 RS.4,49,00,000/ - THROUGH CHEQUE. . THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB -PAGE 186 TO 206 N THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCO ME- TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, INESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF (VIII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PA PER BOOK PAGES- 2,207 TO 226 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. SUKHSAGAR RESIDENCY PVT. LTD. 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- 220) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,31,00,000/ 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 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB -PAGE 208- 226 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETU RN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME- TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED ESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER 2, PAGES 185 TO 206 THE . IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AABCF9036D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS 73352AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON PAGE 200 ) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 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 TO 206 N THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, INESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF 2,207 TO 226 THE M/S. SUKHSAGAR RESIDENCY PVT. LTD. IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS1553N AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011PTC170958AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY 220) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,31,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 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 226 IN THE PB. THIS RN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PR 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 SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (IX) WE N OTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECK6810D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011 PTC 170944 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.56,18,94,080/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,54,00,000/ 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, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK ST ATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH B ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER (X) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AACCL2111J AND ITS CIN NUM U51909WB2011PTC171524 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.56,18,94,080/ THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,80,00,000/ APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BA 31.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.3,80,00,000/ RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCI STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TH IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF 16 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PR IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. OTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2, PAGES 227 TO 261 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. KAMALDHAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECK6810D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011 PTC 170944 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.56,18,94,080/ - AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,54,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 RS. 12,54,00,000/ - THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BO ARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB - PAGE 228 TO 261 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK ATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH B ANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (X) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2, PAGES 262 TO 283 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. LABHDHAN IMPEXT PVT. LTD. IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AACCL2111J AND ITS CIN NUM U51909WB2011PTC171524 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.56,18,94,080/ - (P.B- 2, PAGE 277) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,80,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BA NKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.3,80,00,000/ - THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB- PAGE 163 THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCI 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 TH E TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PR OVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER 2, PAGES 227 TO 261 THE M/S. KAMALDHAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD . IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECK6810D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U45400WB2011 PTC 170944 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON ARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL PAGE 228 TO 261 IN THE PB. FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK ATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY ANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. 2, PAGES 262 TO 283 THE IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AACCL2111J AND ITS CIN NUM BER IS U51909WB2011PTC171524 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 2, PAGE 277) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN AND THIS SHARE NKING CHANNEL ON THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF PAGE 163 -283 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCI AL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE E TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (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 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/ RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEE FORM , BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FIL ED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (XII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECM22 NUMBER IS U51109WB2005PTC102343 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS 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 CHANNEL ON 28.02.2012 A SUM OF RS.50LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME 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 O GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (XIII)WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAICS8900L AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51109WB2005PTC 102121 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS 31.3.2012 RS.1,12,25,612/ TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 LAKHS AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE 17 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (XI) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2 PAGES 284 TO 303 T DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. SUBHSREE IMPEX PVT. LTD. 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 31.3.2012 RS.76,66,93,960/ - (P.B-2, PAGE-297)AND IN VESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,76,00,000/ - AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.2,76,00,0000/ - THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEE S COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM , BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB - PAGE 285 THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND ED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPP ENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER 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 AAECM22 4E AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51109WB2005PTC102343 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.1,54,58,399/ - (PAGE 313 OF P.B INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 LAKHS AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 28.02.2012 A SUM OF RS.50LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB - PAGE 304 TO 326 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME 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 O NUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (XIII)WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK - 2 PAGES 327 TO 352 THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT M/S. SRISTI SALES PVT. LTD. IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAICS8900L AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51109WB2005PTC 102121 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.1,12,25,612/ - AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 LAKHS AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER 2 PAGES 284 TO 303 T HE IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS1845D AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51909WB2011PTC171513 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON VESTMENT MADE IN AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD S COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM , BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF PAGE 285 -303 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND ED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AND HAS DULY FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN ENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER 2, PAGES 304 TO 326 THE M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. IT IS A 4E AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51109WB2005PTC102343 AND THE 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 THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 28.02.2012 A SUM OF RS.50LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, PAGE 304 TO 326 IN THE PB. THIS 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 NUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. 2 PAGES 327 TO 352 THE IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAICS8900L AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS COMPANY AS ON AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 LAKHS AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 28.02.2012 A SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS SH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB 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 GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THUS FROM THE DIS LAST TWO INVESTORS THE OTHER ELEVEN (11) SHARE APPLICANTS OUT OF THIRTEEN (13) SHARE- HOLDERS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE FROM SECOND AO UNDER SECTION 13 3(6) OF THE ACT. THUS WE NOTE THAT THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND DID NOT DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, AND THE VIEW THUS TAKEN BY THE AO CANNOT BE TERMED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 54. SO, FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS REVEALED DURING THE SECOND ROUND, WE NOTE THAT AO HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AND ENQUIRED AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 U/S. 263 OF THE ACT (FIRST 263 ORDER) AND FURTHER WE NOTE TH AT THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT WHILE ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHILE EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION FOR SECOND TIME HAS NOT MADE EVEN A SINGLE ALLEGATION ABOUT THE NON RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIO 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 GIV WHILE PASSING THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER ON 23.08.2016. THUS, WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE SECOND AO WHILE FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CITS ORDER DATED WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AND BASED ON THE INQUIRY CONDUCTED AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 352 PAGES WHICH REVEALS THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUI 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 PRODUCE THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REFERRED SUPRA, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS UPON IT ABOUT THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM RESPECTIVE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. SINCE THE AFORESAID EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE SECOND AO IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE ARE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER, THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THE REASSESSMENT ORD ER OF THE AO IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AOS VIEW TO ACCEPT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS WAS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT ANY RATE CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW ON LAW OR FACTS 18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 28.02.2012 A SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS SH ARE APPLICATION, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINANCIAL STATEMENT 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 GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THUS FROM THE DIS CUSSION ABOVE, IT IS NOTED EXCEPT THE LAST TWO INVESTORS THE OTHER ELEVEN (11) SHARE APPLICANTS OUT OF THIRTEEN HOLDERS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE FROM SECOND AO UNDER SECTION 3(6) OF THE ACT. THUS WE NOTE THAT THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND DID NOT DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, AND THE VIEW THUS TAKEN BY THE AO CANNOT BE TERMED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 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 AT THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT WHILE ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHILE EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION FOR SECOND TIME HAS NOT MADE EVEN A SINGLE ALLEGATION ABOUT THE NON - COMPLIANCE/FAILURE ON THE PART OF SECOND AO IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIO N GIVEN BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 26.03.2016. IN OTHER WORDS, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT FOUND FAULT WITH THE ACTION OF THE SECOND AO IN GIV ING EFFECT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY HIM WHILE PASSING THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER ON 23.08.2016. THUS, WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE SECOND AO WHILE FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CITS ORDER DATED 23.08.2016 (FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER) HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AND BASED ON THE INQUIRY CONDUCTED AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 352 PAGES WHICH REVEALS THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUI NENESS 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 PRODUCE D ALL DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REFERRED SUPRA, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS UPON IT ABOUT THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM RESPECTIVE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. SINCE THE AFORESAID EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE SECOND AO IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE ARE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER, THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THE ER 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 TO ACCEPT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS WAS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT ANY RATE CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW ON LAW OR FACTS ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 28.02.2012 A SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS ARE 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 CUSSION ABOVE, IT IS NOTED EXCEPT THE LAST TWO INVESTORS THE OTHER ELEVEN (11) SHARE APPLICANTS OUT OF THIRTEEN HOLDERS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE FROM SECOND AO UNDER SECTION 3(6) OF THE ACT. THUS WE NOTE THAT THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND DID NOT DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, AND THE VIEW THUS TAKEN BY THE AO CANNOT BE 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 AT THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT WHILE ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHILE EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION FOR SECOND TIME HAS NOT MADE EVEN A COMPLIANCE/FAILURE ON THE PART OF SECOND AO IN N GIVEN BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT DATED 23.08.2016 WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 26.03.2016. IN OTHER WORDS, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT FOUND FAULT WITH ING EFFECT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY HIM WHILE PASSING THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER ON 23.08.2016. THUS, WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE SECOND AO WHILE FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION 23.08.2016 (FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER) HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AND BASED ON THE INQUIRY CONDUCTED AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 352 PAGES WHICH NENESS 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 D ALL DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REFERRED SUPRA, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS UPON IT ABOUT THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE RESPECTIVE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. SINCE THE AFORESAID EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE SECOND AO IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE ARE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER, THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THE ER 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 TO ACCEPT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS WAS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT ANY RATE CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW ON LAW OR FACTS 55. FURTHER, WE ALSO TAKE NOTE THAT 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, HOWE LACK OF ENQUIRY. SO WHEN THERE WAS AN ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO THEN THE AO HAS DISCHARGED THE DUTY OF AN INVESTIGATOR. TO ABOVE ARE AVAILABLE IS THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER BEFORE THE SE 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 CONTROVERTED BY THE SECO 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 IRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT ON THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT MATTER 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 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 19 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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, HOWE VER, 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 SE COND 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 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 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 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 ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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 VER, HE CONCLUDES THAT THERE WAS LACK OF ENQUIRY. SO WHEN THERE WAS AN ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO THEN THE AO HAS AND WE NOTE THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED COND 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 CONTENTS 2) COULD NOT BE FACTUALLY AND STILL IF THE LD. PR. CIT IS NOT SATISFIED AND WANTED TO INTERFERE INVOKING JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, HE HAS TO SHOW THAT THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO WAS FLAWED OR THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO WAS 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 OF ENQUIRY OR FOR NOT COLLECTING THE ENTIRE FACTS, THEN THE SECOND PR. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR THE ADDITIONAL FACTS WHICH HE THINKS THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE OR THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THEN EXPLAINED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AS TO WHAT EFF ECT THOSE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WOULD HAVE MADE ON THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER/REASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN OTHER WORDS THE IMPACT ON THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF FRAMING THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER DUE TO THE FAILURE OF SECOND AOS OMISSION TO COLLECT THE AD 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 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 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 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 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 ASSE SSMENT ORDER. SUMMONS WERE ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT ARE GIVEN AT PAGE 5 TO 7 OF THE ASSESSMEN DIRECTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT. 20 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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 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 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 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 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 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 ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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 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 (SECOND TIME), 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 SSMENT ORDER. SUMMONS WERE ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE M/S. LAKSHMI DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED. THE ACTIONS TAKEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT ARE GIVEN AT T ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME DEMONSTRATES THAT THE APPLICABILITY OF MIND OR NON - VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW. WHEN 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 APPROVED THE 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX TO RECTIFY IT BUT WHEN AN INCOME HIS OWN DISCRETION OR WISDOM BUT FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER O WHO FOLLOWS IN TURN THE DIRECTION OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, TO WHOM BOTH' OF THEM ARE SUBORDINATE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WHO HAD ISSUED THE IMPUGNED INSTRUCTIONS IN A CIRCULAR LE COMMISSIONER CANNOT TREAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE IT WOULD IN FACT AMOUNT TO REVIEWING HIS PREDECESSOR'S ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CANCEL THE SAID ORDER. 15. APPLYING THE PROP OSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE CASE THE 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. 16. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE SD/- [ S. S. GODARA ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 17.02.2021 {SC SPS} 21 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED 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) APPROVED THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL: - 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 IS THE POWER TO THE TAX TO RECTIFY IT BUT WHEN AN INCOME - TAX OFFICER PASSES AN ORDER NOT IN HIS OWN DISCRETION OR WISDOM BUT FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER O WHO FOLLOWS IN TURN THE DIRECTION OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, TO WHOM BOTH' OF THEM ARE SUBORDINATE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX WHO SUCCEEDS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WHO HAD ISSUED THE IMPUGNED INSTRUCTIONS IN A CIRCULAR LE TTER TO THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CANNOT TREAT THE 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 SECTION 263 . WE 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. OSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE CASE - LAW REFERRED ABOVE , 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. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE 17 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021. [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW. WHEN THE ASSESSING 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 CIT VS. K.L. AHUJA (SUPRA) , HAS TAX OFFICER PASSES AN ORDER IN HIS OWN DISCRETION AND THAT ORDER IS FOUND TO IS THE POWER TO THE TAX OFFICER PASSES AN ORDER NOT IN HIS OWN DISCRETION OR WISDOM BUT FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX WHO FOLLOWS IN TURN THE DIRECTION OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, TO WHOM BOTH' OF THEM TAX WHO SUCCEEDS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TTER 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 . WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER TAX WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. UNDER THE LAW REFERRED ABOVE TO , 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. SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 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. 22 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED C/O RAJESH MOHAN & ASSOCIATES 10(4) KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 303/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 -14 M/S. BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹1
Contractor Indemnity Agreement
₹0
Form AOC-2 - Disclosure of Related Party Transaction
Mehul₹50
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026