ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Tiger Softech (I) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 3507/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3558 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.3507/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, M/S. TIGER SOFTECH INDIA PVT. LTD., WARD 16(3), NEW DELHI. VS. 804 A-805, SKYLARK BUIL DING, 60, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI. PAN: AACCT1642E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANSHUMAN PATNAIK, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAT ISH AGGARWAL, CA. O R D E R PER C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.05.2009 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS AS UND ER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,00,000/ - MADE U/S 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CTS OF THE CASE IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND IN OBSERVING THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS ESPECIALLY WHEN CREDIT WORTHINE SS, THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACT ION, WERE NOT PROVED SATISFACTORILY. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 19.10.2006 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. DURING THE YEAR THE 2 ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MON EY OF RS.20,00,000/- FROM THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES:- S.NO. NAME AMOUNT (RS.) 1. M/S. ANIKA CONSULTANTS (P) LTD. 5,00,000/- 2. M/S. GAURAV HOLDINGS (P) LTD. 5,00,000/- 3. M/S. FNS CONSULTANCY (P) LTD. 5,00,000/- 4. M/S. UNIQUE INSULATION & THERMO PACKAGING (P) LTD. 5,00,000/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASS ESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(3) AND THAT WAS ULTIMATELY COMPLETED ON 23.12.2 008 WHEREIN AN ADDITION OF RS.20,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION M ONEY WAS MADE BY THE AO BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY CREDIT ED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ISSUED NOTICES TO THE SHARE APPLICANTS TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. HOWEVER, NONE OF THE SHAR E APPLICANT ATTENDED BEFORE THE AO AND EVEN THE NOTICES ISSUED TO ONE OF SHARE APPLICANTS, NAMELY, M/S. UNIQUE INSULATION & THERMO PACKAGING ( P) LTD. HAD RETURNED BACK UNSERVED. THE AO THEREAFTER, ISSUED SUMMON TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BUT NONE ATTENDED IN RESPONSE THER ETO. THE ASSESSEE WAS THEN ASKED BY THE AO TO PRODUCE DIRECTOR AS WELL AS THE SHARE APPLICANTS BUT THAT WAS ALSO NOT COMPLIED WITH. THE AO THEN OBSER VED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-PRODUCTION OF THE DIRE CTOR AS WELL AS THE SHARE APPLICANTS. THE AO, THEREFORE, TAKEN A VIEW THAT F ROM THESE FACTS IT IS CLEAR 3 THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY INTENDED TO HIDE SOMETHING AND AVOIDING TO ATTEND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE MEANTIME, THE AO MADE INVESTIGATION TO FIND OUT THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THE AO THEN EXAMINED THE BANK ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. 2.1 WITH REGARD TO THE SHARE APPLICANT M/S. ANIKA C ONSULTANTS (P) LTD., THE AO NOTICED THAT IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MAHRAULI, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVE D RS.5,00,000/- FROM THE SHARE APPLICANT BUT THE ACCOUNT DID NOT HAVE SUFFIC IENT FUNDS INASMUCH AS AN AMOUNT OF RS.4.95 LAKH WAS RECEIVED BY THE SHARE AP PLICANT FROM THE ACCOUNT OF LA INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD. ON 24.3.2005 AND IT WILL NOT BE OUT OF THE CONTEXT TO MENTIONED THAT IN THE ACCOUNT OF LA INDI A SERVICES, A CASH DEPOSIT OF NEARLY 1 CRORE WAS MADE DURING THE SPAN OF 6 MON THS. 2.2 WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/- RECE IVED FROM M/S. UNIQUE INSULATION BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO FOUND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS.5,00,000/-FROM A/C NO.3245 OF UNIQUE IN SULATION WHICH HAD CASH DEPOSITS OF OVER RS.600 LAKHS IN 3 MONTHS. 2.3 WITH REGARD TO THE DEPOSIT RECEIVED FROM M/S. G AURAV HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., THE BANK MANAGER OF VIJAYA BANK WAS NOT ABLE TO GIVE THE BANK STATEMENT. HOWEVER, A LETTER WAS SUBMITTED REGARDI NG SOURCE OF CREDIT THAT 4 SUCH AMOUNT WAS PAID OUT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN ACCOUNT OF RAJA AGENCIES ON THE SAME DATE. 2.4 WITH REGARD TO THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECE IVED FROM FNS CONSULTANCY, THE AO NOTICED THAT IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICANT A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1 CRORE WAS MADE. 3. THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT M/S. GAURAV HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., M/S. FNS CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. AND M/S. UNIQUE INSULATIO N ARE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OPERATORS BELONGING TO GROUP OF PRADEEP JINDA L & SURINDER PAL SINGH AND OTHERS AND DURING THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATION C ONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THEIR STATEMENT WAS RECORDED IN WHICH T HEY ADMITTED OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. 4. THE AO THEN DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DETAILS ABOUT THE MODUS OPERANDI OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AND CAME TO THE VI EW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVING THE IDE NTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE AO, THEREFORE, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.20,00,000/-/ 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEA L BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5 6. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE INITIAL BURDEN THAT LAY UPON IT BY FILING COPIES OF INCOME-TAX RETURN, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SHARE APPLICAN TS, THE PARTICULARS OF THEIR PAN NUMBERS, COPIES OF CHEQUE RECEIPTS, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE CONFIRMATION OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BUT THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD T O REBUT THE VARIOUS EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SU BMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROC URED CONFIRMATION FROM THE SHARE APPLICANTS IN THE MONTHS OF MARCH AND APR IL, 2008 WHEN THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A NOTICE FROM THE DEPARTMENT SELE CTING THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR SCRUTINY AND THUS AT THE TIME WHEN SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN TOUCH WITH SHARE APPLICANTS. SEVERAL DECISIONS WERE ALSO CITED BEFORE THE LEARNE D CIT(A). 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND AOS ORDER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 11. I HAVE NO HESITATION TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS PROVIDED NECESSARY DETAILS INCLUDING THE WARD/CIRCL E WHERE THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND DI SCHARGED THE ONUS CAST ON IT. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING O N RECORD TO DISPUTE THE FACTS/DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE . 12. THE LAW OF EVIDENCE MANDATES THAT IF THE BEST E VIDENCE IS NOT PLACED BEFORE THE COURT, AN ADVERSE INFERENCE C AN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE PERSON WHO OUGHT TO HAVE PRODUCED IT. AS STATED ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED POSSIBLE/BEST EVIDENCE TO 6 SUPPORT ITS CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE FASTENED WITH TAX LIABILITY FOR FAILING TO DO AN UNREASONABLE AND UNJ USTIFIED ACT OF PRODUCTION OF DIRECTOR/S OF SHARE APPLICANTS/INVEST ING COMPANIES. 13. IF THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS MAINTAINED BY THE INVESTING COMPANIES, THERE IS A C ASE FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE SHARE APPLICANTS/INVESTING COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE MISTAKES/F AULTS COMMITTED BY THE SHARE HOLDERS. THE AO HAS NOT FOU ND ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BANK ACCOUN TS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 14. IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT NO ADDITION /DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE ON SUSPICION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES. A) DHIRAJLAL GIRDHARILAL V CIT 26 ITR 736 B) OMAR SALAY MOHAMMED SAIT V CIT 37 ITR 151 C) DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. V CIT 26 ITR 775 D) LALCHAND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM V CIT 37 ITR 288 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AN D AVAILABLE LEGAL POSITION, THE SHARE APPLICATION MON EY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20,00,000/- STANDS EXPLANED. HENCE, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. THE LEARNED DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS INFO RMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO THAT SHARE APPLICANTS M/S. GAURAV HOLDI NGS PVT. LTD., M/S. FNS CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. AND M/S. UNIQUE INSULATION & THERMO PACKAGING PVT. LTD. WERE ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING ACCO MMODATION ENTRY AND THEY BELONG TO THE GROUP OF PRADEEP JINDAL AND SURI NDER PAL SINGH & OTHERS. 7 THE LEARNED DR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE INVESTI GATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS ON OATH WH ERE THEY ADMITTED OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND THEY WERE BEING ASSESSED AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OPERATORS BY THE DEPARTMENT. I N THE LIGHT OF THIS INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO, THE AO MADE ENQU IRY BY ISSUING SUMMONS TO THE SHARE APPLICANTS BUT NONE OF THEM RE SPONDED TO SUCH NOTICES AND EVEN THE NOTICE TO UNIQUE INSULATION WAS RETURN ED UNSERVED. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD N OT BE ABLE TO PROCURE THE ATTENDANCE OF SHARE APPLICANTS, THE AO ISSUED SUMMO NS TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BUT TO THE UTTER SURPRISE, THE DIR ECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NEVER ATTENDED IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE AO. THE AO THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER-SHE ET DATED 21.10.2008 SPECIFICALLY TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSE E COMPANY AS WELL AS SHARE APPLICANTS BUT THAT WAS ALSO NOT COMPLIED BY THE AS SESSEE TILL THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION OR REASON AS TO WHY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISS UED BY THE AO OR AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE ARRA NGEMENT OF APPEARANCE OF SHARE APPLICANTS BEFORE THE AO SO THAT THE PROPE R ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO WITH A VIEW TO EXAMINE THE 8 GENUINENESS AND VERACITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF REC EIVING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ALLEGED SHARE APPLIC ANTS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO HAS MERELY DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE B ASIS OF VARIOUS PAPERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO AND FURTHER BY OBSERVING THAT THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO DISPUTE THE FACTS/DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH FINDING IS ACTUALLY NOT CORRECT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE AO HAS STARTED ENQUI RY BY ISSUING SUMMONS TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS TO THE SHARE APPLICANTS. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BE RESTORED. 10. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTH ER HAND, REITERATED THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS AND CONTENTIONS THAT WERE MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARG ED ITS BURDEN BY PRODUCING THE NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE RECEIPT OF S HARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM 4 SHARE APPLICANTS. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT TH AT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED VARIOUS DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANTS SUCH AS COPIES OF INCOME-TAX RETURN, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SHARE APPLICANTS, COPIES OF CHEQU E RECEIPTS, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE CONF IRMATION OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS ALONG WITH THEIR PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBE RS. HE FURTHER 9 SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT OR CONTROVERT VARIOUS DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE CIT(A) HAS RIGH TLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE L EARNED CIT(A). 10.1 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. CIT VS. WINSTRAL PETROCHEMICALS (P) LTD. IN ITA 592 /2010 (DELHI HIGH COURT); 2. CIT VS. VICTOR ELECTRODES LTD. DATED 12.05.2010 IN ITA NO.586/2010 (DELHI HIGH COURT); 3. CIT-II, LUDHIANA VS. M/S SHRI DADU AUTO PVT. LTD. D ATED 30.03.2010 IN ITA NO.704 OF 2009 (PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT) ; & 4. CIT & DCIT VS. ARUNANDA TEXTILES PVT. LTD., ORDER D ATED 2.3.2010 IN ITA NO.1515 OF 2005. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE CAREFUL LY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED AT THE BAR HAVE BEEN DELIBERATED UPON. 12. IN THIS CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED TH E ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PROVIDED NECESSARY DE TAILS OR EVIDENCES INCLUDING THE INCOME-TAX WARD/CIRCLE WHERE THE SAID APPLICANTS WERE ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX AND HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST ON IT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO DISPUTE THE FACTS/DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, 10 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE F ACT THAT WITH A VIEW TO VERIFY THE VERACITY AND GENUINENESS OF VARIOUS EVID ENCES AND EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUED SUMMONS TO THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS WELL AS TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BUT THAT ENQUIRY COULD NOT BE DONE BY THE AO BECAUSE OF NON- COOPERATION BY THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS NONE OF THEM HAD APPEARED BEFOR E THE AO NOR BY THE ASSESSEES DIRECTOR WHO HAD ALSO FAILED TO APPEAR B EFORE THE AO THOUGH THE ASSESSEES DIRECTOR WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO APPEA R BEFORE THE AO VIDE ORDER-SHEET ENTRY DATED 21.10.2008. IT IS THE CASE WHERE THE AO HAS MADE SINCERE EFFORTS TO EXAMINE AND VERIFY THE GENUINENE SS OF THE RECEIPTS BY ISSUING NOTICES TO THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS WELL AS TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THIS FACT IT IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE ON THE PART OF THE CIT(A) TO HOLD THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO DISPUTE THE FACTS/ DETAILS FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION EITHER BEFORE THE CIT (A) OR BEFORE US AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEES DIRECTOR HAD FAILED TO APPEAR BE FORE THE AO FOR EXAMINATION. BY THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE BY NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE AO BY ITS DIRECTOR, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREVENTED THE AO FROM MAKING ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY. HAD THE SHARE APPLICANTS AND DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY APPEARED BEFORE THE AO, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMIN ED BY THE AO AND THE 11 CORRECT AND TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS ABOUT THE GENUINE NESS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD . FURTHER, THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT IN TH E BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT M/S. GAURAV H OLDINGS P. LTD., M/S. FNS CONSULTANCY P. LTD. AND M/S. UNIQUE INSULATION ARE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OPERATORS BELONGING TO GROUP OF PRADEEP JINDA L & SURINDER PAL SINGH AND OTHERS AND, INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMEN T HAD RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS ON OATH WHERE THEY HAD ADMITTED OF PROVI DING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE AO HAD MADE AN ATTEMPT TO SUPPORT THI S FINDING OF THE INVESTIGATION WING BY ISSUING NOTICES TO THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS WELL AS TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BUT NONE OF T HEM HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE AO CAUSING A HINDRANCE TO THE AO TO BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL DISPUTING THE GENUINENESS OF THE VARIOUS DETAILS FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE VARIOUS RECENT DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH CO URTS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED THAT ATTEMPT SHOULD HAVE B EEN MADE BY THE AO TO SUMMON THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANI ES AND TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRY BY ISSUING SUMMONS FOR VERIFICATIONS. IN T HE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS WELL AS TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREFORE, V ARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE AT THIS STAGE SO AS TO 12 DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THESE DECISION S ARE OF HELP TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE MADE PROPER ENQUIRY IN ORDER TO CONTROVERT THE VARIOUS EVIDENCES AND DETAILS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS MADE AN AT TEMPT, BUT HE WAS PREVENTED FROM PROCEEDING FURTHER, AS NEITHER THE S HARE APPLICANTS NOR THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, HAD APPEARED BEFO RE HIM. IN THESE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES, WE THEREFORE, RESTORE THE M ATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR HIS FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER MAKING DUE ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION BY SUMMONING THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS WELL AS THE DI RECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS HEREBY DIRECTED T O PRODUCE THEIR DIRECTOR BEFORE THE AO AS IT IS WITHIN THEIR CONTROL TO PROD UCE THEIR OWN DIRECTOR BEFORE THE AO FOR EXAMINATION. THE AO WOULD ISSUE SUMMONS TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS TO THE SHARE APPLICANTS AFTER OBTAINING THEIR PRESENT ADDRESSES FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OR BY PROCURING DETAILS FROM THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS OR RECORDS MAIN TAINED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES. THE AO SHALL PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, AND TO CROSS-EXAMINE ANY PERSON OR PE RSONS IN CASE THE STATEMENTS OF THOSE PERSONS ARE TO BE USED BY THE A O AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER SHALL BE REMAINED WIDE OPEN BEFORE THE A O, AND BOTH THE PARTIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PROVE THEIR RESPECTIVE STAND . WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 13 ITA NO.3507/DEL/2009 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS TREATED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JULY, 2010. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH JULY, 2010. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.