MAJESTIC STOCK PVT.LTD., JAIPUR V. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

ITA 34/JPR/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3154 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S NEHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SL GUPTA
• Keywords: Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Assessment record; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 147; 68; 148; 263

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HES A JAIPUR JH LAANHI XKSLKBZ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 34/JP/2021 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011-12 MAJESTIC STOCK PVT LTD 24, SANTOSH SAGAR COLONY, B RA H MPURI, JAIPUR CUKE VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-2 LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AAGCM3877J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SH. S. L. GUPTA (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SH. A. S. NEHRA (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05/10/2021 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/10/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. PCIT- JAIPUR-2 PASSED U/S 263 DATED 31.03.2021 FOR A.Y 20 11-12. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2011-12 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.03.2012 DECLARING INCOME AT RS. NIL. THE MATTER WAS REOPENED BY ISSUANCE OF NOT ICE U/S 148 AND ASSESSMENT U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 19 61 WAS COMPLETED ON 31.12.2018 BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR AND ASSESS ED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 18,47,250/-. ITA NO. 34/JP/2021 MAJESTIC STOCK PVT LTD. RAJASTHAN VS. PR. CIT, JAIP UR-2 2 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, THE LD PCI T FOUND THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MON EY FROM FOUR ENTITIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,61,00,000/-. IT WAS STATED THAT AS PER COPY OF BANK STATEMENT PROVIDED BY THE MAXIUS VENTURES PVT. LTD, IT SEEN THAT IT HAS INVESTED ONLY RS. 20,00,000/- INSTEAD OF RS. 45,00, 000/- IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SCHEDULE-4 APPENDED TO THE BALANCE SHEET O F MAXIUS VENTURES PVT. LTD SHOWS DECREASE OF INVESTMENT FROM RS. 5,31,29,000/- TO 2,48,93,845/- AND NO DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY INVESTED IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS AVAILABLE. HENCE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY INVESTED BY THE MAXIUS VENTURES PVT. LTD. COU LD NOT BE VERIFIED AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE INVESTMENT WAS ALSO CO ULD NOT BE VERIFIABLE. IT WAS HELD BY THE LD PCIT THAT IT IS FACTUALLY CLE AR THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT VERIFIED THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT AND IT APPEARS THAT THE A SSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147 R.W. S. U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT 1 961 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 ON 31.12.2018 IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 W AS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE DCIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR ON 31.12.2018 M AY NOT BE REVISED U/S 263 AND MAY NOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 4 . IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW-CAUSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS SUBMISSIONS. THE SUBMISSIONS SO FILED WERE CONSIDERED BY THE LD PCIT BUT NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SET ASIDE T O BE MADE DE NOVO AFTER PROPER EXAMINATION OF GENUINENESS OF SHARE CA PITAL AND PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST TH E SAID FINDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 34/JP/2021 MAJESTIC STOCK PVT LTD. RAJASTHAN VS. PR. CIT, JAIP UR-2 3 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR RAISED VARIOUS CONTENTIONS AGAINST THE ORDER SO PASSED BY THE LD. PCIT, JAIPUR AND RELIED UPON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE CONTENTS THEREOF READ AS U NDER: 1. THE LD. PCIT PASSED ORDER U/S 263 MENTIONING TH E BASIS THAT AS PER BANK STATEMENT, INVESTMENT IN SHARE BY M/S MAXIS VE NTURS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN HAPPY COLLECTION PVT LTD) SHOWN RS. 20,00,000/- AS AGAINST SUBSCRIPTION OF SHARE OF RS. 45,00,000/- WH ICH IS FACTUALLY WRONG AND WITHOUT VERIFYING COMPLETE BANK STATEMENT AS SU BMITTED BY US DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. IN FACTS, T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BANK STATEMENT OF INVESTOR COMPANY AS WEL L AS OWN BANK ACCOUNT. IN BANK STATEMENT, ENTRIES FOR INVESTMENT OF SHARE APPLICATION RS. 45,00,000/- APPEARING AS DETAIL BELOW: 26-08-2010 RTGS THROUGH CH NO. 561388 RS. 20,00,0 00/- 09-09-2010 RTGS THROUGH CH NO. 561395 RS. 25,00,0 00/- THE FACT HAS BEEN CLEARLY EXPLAINED BY APPELLANT CO MPANY TO LD PCIT VIDE LETTER DATED 26-02-2021 THAT BOTH ENTRIES OF S HARE APPLICATION MONEY INVESTED ARE VERIFIABLE FROM COMPLETE BANK ST ATEMENT OF INVESTOR COMPANY WITH FURTHER PROVIDED TRANSACTION ENQUIRY R EPORT FROM BANK AND ALSO FROM BANK STATEMENT OF APPELLANT COMPANY SUBMI TTED DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THE ONLY THING IS THAT TH E LD PCIT CONSIDERED ONLY THE PART OF BANK STATEMENT OF MAXIS VENTURE PV T. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN HAPPY COLLECTION PVT LTD) AND MISSED TO SEE T HE NEXT PAGE HAVING ENTRY RS 25,00,000/- DATED 09-09-2010. AS SU CH COMPLETE RS.45,00,000/- PAID BY INVESTOR ARE DULY VERIFIED F ROM BOTH BANK STATEMENT OF INVESTOR COMPANY AND APPELLANT COMPANY SUBMITTED DURING COURSE OF HEARING AND ALSO FROM TRANSACTION REPORT OBTAINED FROM BANK ITA NO. 34/JP/2021 MAJESTIC STOCK PVT LTD. RAJASTHAN VS. PR. CIT, JAIP UR-2 4 SUBMITTED TO LD PCIT FOR FURTHER CLEARANCE OF ANY C ONFUSION IN UNDERSTANDING OF ENTRIES IN BANK STATEMENT. 2. FURTHER LD PCIT AGAIN IN MISCONCEPTION OF FACTS MENTIONED IN ORDER THAT A.O. HAS NOT VERIFIED THE GENUINENESS OF TRANS ACTION, IDENTITY OF INVESTOR, HIS CREDIT WORTHINESS AND SOURCE OF MONEY . IN FACT GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS, IDENTITY AND SOURCE HAS BEEN VERIFIED FROM THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS OF INVESTOR SUBMITTED DURING CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING: (I) COPY OF BANK STATEMENT APPEARING PAYMENT AS MENTION ED IN PARA 1 ABOVE (II) CONFIRMATION (III) COPY OF ITR (IV) COPY OF BALANCE SHEET (V) COMPANY MASTER DATA AVAILABLE AT MCA WEBSITE THE LD A.O ALSO OBTAINED SAME DOCUMENTS DIRECTLY FR OM INVESTOR COMPANY CALLING INFORMATION U/S 133(6) AND VERIFIED FROM BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT COMPANY. 3. FURTHER, THE LD PCIT ALSO CREATE DOUBT ON DECRE ASE IN INVESTMENT FIGURE IN BALANCE SHEET OF MAXIS VENTURE PVT LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN HAPPY COLLECTION PVT. LTD) SHOWS FROM RS 5,31,29,000/- IN 2009-10 TO RS 2,48,93,845/- IN 2010-11, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DECR EASE IN FIGURE OF INVESTMENT IN BALANCE SHEET OF INVESTOR COMPANY IS IRRELEVANT TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTION. THE AMOUNT APPEARING IN HEAD INVESTMEN T IN THE BALANCE SHEET IS SUM OF TOTAL INVESTMENT HELD AS ON DATE OF BALANCE SHEET. IN BALANCE SHEET SHOWING A CONSOLIDATED FIGURE OF ALL INVESTMENT INCLUDING INVESTMENT TO ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE FIGURE OF INVES TMENT IN BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31-03-2011 IS RS 2,48,93,845/- AGAINST INVESTMENT TO ITA NO. 34/JP/2021 MAJESTIC STOCK PVT LTD. RAJASTHAN VS. PR. CIT, JAIP UR-2 5 APPELLANT COMPANY RS 45,00,000/- IS STILL MUCH HIGH ER THAN THE INVESTMENT MADE TO APPELLANT COMPANY AND QUESTION OF GENUINENE SS CANNOT ARISE DUE TO DECREASE IN INVESTMENT FIGURE OF INVESTOR COMPAN Y ON BASIS OF SUCH COMPARISON. THE INVESTMENT BY INVESTOR IN APPELLANT CO. HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY OTHER DOCUMENT LIKE CONFIRMATION, BANK ACCOUNT E TC. SEPARATELY. 4. FOR REVISION OF ANY ORDER U/S 263 THERE MUST BE TWO CONDITIONS NAMELY THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND THAT THE ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE WHICH MUST BE SATIS FIED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER MAY INVOKE HIS POWERS UNDER SECTION 26 3 OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE THE FACT IS THAT ALL DOCUMENT TO VERIFY THE TR ANSACTION CALLED BY THE A.O DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND ALSO MADE FURT HER ENQUIRY BY CALLING INFORMATION U/S 133(6) AND VERIFIED FROM BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT COMPANY. HENCE REVI SION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE WHEN INQUIRIES ON THE ISSUE HAVE ALREAD Y BEEN MADE BY THE AO BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. THE LD P CIT BEFORE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, HE MUST HIMSELF MAKE A N INQUIRIES WITH AVAILABLE MATERIAL/EVIDENCE WITH HIM. IN SUPPORT, W E DRAW YOUR ATTENTION DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURT AS UNDER: A) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIKAS POLYMERS [2012] 341 ITR 537 (DELHI)(HC), THE COURT HELD THAT IF THE AO HAS MADE INQUIRIES AND REPLIED TO BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL POW ERS ARE NOT WARRANTED. ALSO, WANT OF EVIDENCE CANNOT BE A GROUND TO DISTUR B THE FINDINGS OF THE AO OR TO STATE THAT THE AO HAS SHIRKED HIS RESPONSI BILITY. THAT THE COMMISSIONER SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED REASONS IN SUPPOR T OF REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. B) IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD [ 2012] 343 ITR 329(DELHI)(HC), THE COURT HELD THAT IN CASES WHERE INQUIRIES HAVE BEEN ITA NO. 34/JP/2021 MAJESTIC STOCK PVT LTD. RAJASTHAN VS. PR. CIT, JAIP UR-2 6 MADE BY THE AO, THE CIT MUST HIMSELF MAKE INQUIRIES AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, THAT THE OR DER HAS TO BE ON MERITS OF THE RESULT OF THE INQUIRY, THAT THE AO ACTS AS A N INVESTIGATOR AND AN ADJUDICATOR, THAT THE CIT CANNOT DIRECT THE AO TO S EE IF THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS OR RECONSIDER THE ORDER, THAT NOTHING BAR S/PROHIBITS THE CIT FROM COLLECTING AND RELYING UPON NEW/ADDITIONAL MAT ERIAL/EVIDENCE TO SHOW AND STATE THAT THE ORDER OF THEN ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS. LOOKING TO ABOVE FACTS, THE LD PCIT DID NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE REASONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS REVISIONAL ORDER. YOUR HONOUR IS THE REFORE REQUESTED TO KINDLY ACCEPT THE APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF REVISION U/S 263 WHICH IS AGAINST THE FACT AND BAD IN LAW. 6. IN HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD. CIT/DR DRAWN OUR REFE RENCE TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. PCIT, JAIPUR WHICH READ AS UNDE R:- 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE. I FIND THAT THE SAME ARE NOT TENABLE. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSES SMENT ORDER AND CASE RECORDS AND SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE CONTENTION OF ASSESS EE ARE NOT TENABLE. THE FACT IS THAT IN CASE OF MAXIUS VENTURES PVT. LT D., INVESTMENT OF RS. 20,00,000/- AS PER THE BANK STATEMENTS WHEREAS THE SHARE CAPITAL SUBSCRIPTION OF RS.45,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS CO NTENDED THAT NOW HIS FILING A BANK STATEMENT AND TRANSACTION INQUIRY FROM BANK. HOWEVER, THE PERTINENT POINT IS THAT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSME NT NO SUCH DETAILS WERE FILED OR BROUGHT ON RECORD. ABSENCE OF SUCH DE TAILS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAKE IT AN ERRONEOUS ORDER. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAVING REGA RD TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED T O CONSIDER/APPLY HIS ITA NO. 34/JP/2021 MAJESTIC STOCK PVT LTD. RAJASTHAN VS. PR. CIT, JAIP UR-2 7 MIND TO THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD WITH RE GARD TO THE UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM M /S VOLPLAST PVT. LTD. FURTHER, AO HAS ALSO NOT VERIFIED THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE TRANSACTION, REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR , HIS CREDITWORTHINESS, AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WITH REFERENCE T O THE SOURCE OF MONEY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE (AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AT THAT TIME). THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE ISSUE IN PROPER MANNER. 7. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND HAVING REGARD TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER/APPLY HIS MIND TO THE INFORMATION AVAILABL E ON RECORD WITH REGARD TO THE VERIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF THE U NEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE-SHEET FIL ED DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THE ORDER PASSE D ON 31.12.2018 IS WITHOUT MAKING NECESSARY VERIFICATION CUM EXAMINATI ON OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.45,00,000/ - SHOWN IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE W ITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE GIVEN FACTS ON RECORD. T HIS IN TURN HAS RESULTED IN PASSING OF AN ERRONEOUS ORDER BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE DUE TO NON-APPLICATION OF MIND TO RELEVANT MAT ERIAL, AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS AND AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF MIND TO LAW WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 8. THUS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE OR DER PASSED U/S 143(3) ON 29.03.2012 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND THAT ACTION U/S 263 IS JUSTIFIED IN THI S CASE. 9. ACCORDINGLY, BY VIRTUE OF POWERS CONFERRED ON TH E UNDERSIGNED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT 1961, I HOLD ITA NO. 34/JP/2021 MAJESTIC STOCK PVT LTD. RAJASTHAN VS. PR. CIT, JAIP UR-2 8 THAT THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE IT ACT DATED 31.12.2018 FOR AY 2011-12 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRON EOUS IN SO FAR AS IT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AS THE SAID ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A ROUTINE AND PERFUNCTO RY MANNER WITHOUT EXAMINING THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE LIABLE TO REV ISION UNDER THE CLAUSE (A), (B) & (C ) OF EXPLANATION (2) TO SECTION 263 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SET ASIDE TO BE MADE DE NOVO AFTER PROPER EXAMINATION OF GENUINENESS OF SHARE CAPITAL AND PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRSTLY, IT IS NOTED THAT THE WHOLE OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147 R/W 143(3) HAS BE EN SET ASIDE TO BE MADE DE NOVO AFTER PROPER EXAMINATION OF GENUINENES S OF SHARE CAPITAL. TO OUR UNDERSTANDING, THE SAID FINDING OF THE LD PC IT WILL RELATES TO THE WHOLE OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS 1.61 CRO RES WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, IF WE LOOK AT THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE AND TH E DISCUSSIONS IN THE BODY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE MATTER IS RESTRICTE D TO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM ONE OF THE ENTITIES, NAMELY MAX IUS VENTURES LTD AMOUNTING TO RS 45 LACS. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT T HERE IS NO BASIS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE WHOLE OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDER A ND IF AT ALL, THE MATTER HAS TO BE SET-ASIDE, WHICH WE SHALL BE DISCU SSING IN THE SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPHS, IT IS TO BE RESTRICTED TO EX AMINING THE MATTER RELATING TO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM M AXIUS VENTURES LTD AMOUNTING TO RS 45 LACS. 11. HAVING SAID THAT, IT IS NOT UNDER DISPUTE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S 148 TO EXAMINE THE GENUIN ENESS OF SHARE ITA NO. 34/JP/2021 MAJESTIC STOCK PVT LTD. RAJASTHAN VS. PR. CIT, JAIP UR-2 9 APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM FOU R ENTITIES INCLUDING MAXIUS VENTURES LTD DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEV ANT TO IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE MATTER AND CALLED FO R INFORMATION/EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING INFORMATION SOUGHT DIRECTLY U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. BASIS SUCH EXAMINA TION, HE ACCEPTED THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THREE ENTITIES INCLUDING M AXIUS VENTURES LTD AS GENUINE AND IN RESPECT OF THE FOURTH ENTITY, HE HEL D THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT PROVED AND ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONE Y WAS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE THAT THE M ATTER RELATING TO MAXIUS VENTURES LTD WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 12. IT IS NOT EVEN THE CASE OF THE LD PCIT THAT THE INFORMATION/DOCUMENTATION WERE NOT CALLED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND THE MATTER WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE LD PCIT HAS REFERRED TO THE BANK STATEMENT AND BALANCE SHEET OF MAXIUS VENTURES LTD WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AN D HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO APPLY HIS MIND TO I NFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OTHER WORDS, THE LD PCIT IS OF THE OPINI ON THAT THE INFORMATION SO AVAILABLE ON RECORD HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXAMIN ED/VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THUS, THERE IS NO PROPER APPL ICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE BASIS OF ARRIVING AT SUCH A FINDING IS THAT AS PER BANK STATEMENT OF MAXIUS VENTURES, ONLY TRANSACTION OF RS 20 LACS HAS BEEN REFLECTED AS AGAINST SHARE APPLICATION OF RS 4 5 LACS AND SECONDLY, THERE IS A DECREASE IN OVERALL QUANTUM OF INVESTMEN T AS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF MAXIUS VENTURES. THE LD AR HAS CON TESTED SUCH FINDINGS OF THE LD PCIT AND DURING THE COURSE OF HE ARING, TAKEN US ITA NO. 34/JP/2021 MAJESTIC STOCK PVT LTD. RAJASTHAN VS. PR. CIT, JAIP UR-2 10 THROUGH THE BANK STATEMENT OF MAXIUS VENTURES AND S UBMITTED THAT THE LD PCIT HAS VERIFIED ONLY ONE OF THE ENTRIES APPEAR ING IN THE BANK STATEMENT AMOUNTING TO RS 20 LACS ON 26.08.2010 AND HAS FAILED TO NOTICE THAT THERE IS ANOTHER ENTRY OF RS 25 LACS ON 9.09.2010. FURTHER, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT TOTAL QUANTUM OF INVES TMENT IN THE BOOKS OF MAXIUS VENTURES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR STO OD AT RS 5,31,29,000/- AND AT THE END OF THE YEAR, IT HA S NO DOUBT REDUCED TO RS 2,48,93,845/- BUT IT CONTINUES TO INCLUDE THE IN VESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AMOUNTING TO RS 45 LACS AND MORE S O, THE FACT OF SUCH INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS 45 LACS HAS BEEN CO NFIRMED BY MAXIUS VENTURES AND ALSO CROSS-VERIFIED BY THE AO CALLING FOR INFORMATION U/S 133(6) FROM THE SAID INVESTOR COMPANY. WE AGREE WIT H THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE LD AR THAT THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS T OTALING TO RS 45 LACS ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT AS WELL AS IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE INVESTOR COMPANY AND THEREFORE, THE SAME CAN NOT FORM THE BASIS FOR HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS AS HE FAILED TO CONSIDER SUCH DISCREPANCIES. 13. REGARDING IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, WE FIND THAT WH ERE THE LD PCIT HAS HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY ATLEAST TO THE EXTENT OF RS 20 LACS HAS BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNEL FROM MAXIUS VENTURES, THE IDENTITY AND NATURE OF TH E TRANSACTION IS VERY MUCH ACCEPTED BY HIM. REGARDING CREDITWORTHINESS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT O F THE INVESTOR COMPANY WHICH SHOWS CLEARLY THE MONEY STANDING TO T HE CREDIT OF THE INVESTOR COMPANY ACCOUNT FROM ITS SHARE TRADING BUS INESS AND OUT OF WHICH, THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSEE S COMPANY. ITA NO. 34/JP/2021 MAJESTIC STOCK PVT LTD. RAJASTHAN VS. PR. CIT, JAIP UR-2 11 FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF BALANCE SHEET, INCOME-TAX RETURN, COMPANY MASTER DATA AVAILABLE ON MCA WEBSIT E OF THE INVESTOR COMPANY WHICH HAS DETAILS OF ITS DIRECTORS/SHAREHOL DERS AND OTHER RELEVANT DETAILS AS WELL AS COPY OF CONFIRMATION FR OM THE INVESTOR COMPANY. BESIDES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO D IRECTLY CALLED FOR INFORMATION FROM THE INVESTOR COMPANY U/S 133(6) AN D HAS VERIFIED THE SAME WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COM PANY. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTE D ALL THESE DOCUMENTATION AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DULY EXAMINED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INDEPENDENTLY CALLING FOR THE INFORMATIO N AND CROSS-VERIFYING THE SAME WITH THE INVESTOR COMPANY AND WITH THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO CARRY OUT PROPER VERIFICATION OF THE TRAN SACTION UNDER CONSIDERATION. 14. IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND IN TH E ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL AND JUSTIFIABLE BASIS TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AND EX AMINATION AS REASONABLY EXPECTED HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS TAKEN A PRUDENT, JUDICIOUS AND REASONABLE VI EW AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE ORD ER SO PASSED U/S 143(3) R/W 147 CANNOT BE HELD AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FA R AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD PCIT U/S 263 IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS SUSTAINED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. ITA NO. 34/JP/2021 MAJESTIC STOCK PVT LTD. RAJASTHAN VS. PR. CIT, JAIP UR-2 12 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/10/2021. SD/- SD/- LANHI XKSLKBZ FOE FLAG ;KNO ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 22/10/2021 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- MAJESTIC STOCK PVT. LTD., BRAHMPURI 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- PR. CIT, JAIPUR-2 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 34/JP/2021} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR