ACIT, CC- 15, New Delhi V. M/s. Brahmaputra Realtors (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3911/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2244 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM JAIN SH LALIT MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SATPAL GULATI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Share purchase agreement; Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 207; 13; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, A: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3911/DEL/2017 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13] ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, ROOM NO.353, E-2, ARA CENTRE JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI-110055 M/S BRAHMAPUTRA REALTORS PVT. LTD. BRAHMAPUTRA HOUE, A-7, MAHIPALPUR, DELHI-110037 PAN-AACCB5617P ASSESSEE REVENUE ASSESSEE BY SH. SATPAL GULATI, CIT-DR REVENUE BY SH. GAUTAM JAIN, ADVOCATE, SH. LALIT MOHAN, CA DATE OF HEARING 08.06.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.06.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 20 TH MARCH, 2017 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDERS, DEVEL OPERS AND 2 ITA NO.3911/DEL/2017 PROMOTERS, ETC. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 18 .05.2013, DECLARING LOSS OF RS.49,506/-. SINCE, THERE WAS NO SALE AND PURCHASES DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARN ED ANY INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES OF RS.3,39,17,329/- AND HAS CL AIMED LOSS OF RS.49,506/- AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SHARE CAPI TAL FROM THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES/PERSONS, THE DETAILS OF WHI CH ARE AS UNDER:- SL. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT RECEIVED 1 M/S AAVISKAR MARKETING PVT. LTD. 70,00,0 00 2 SH. AMIT AGARWAL 55,00,000 3 M/S BARAK AGRO PVT. LTD. 46,00,000 4 M/S BARAK ISPAT PVT. LTD. 45,00,000 5 M/S GOLDEN PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD. 25,00,000 6 SH. MUKESH AGARWAL 40,00,000 7 M/S NORTEL TEXTILES PVT. LTD. 16,00,000 8 SH. RAJENDRA KUMAR AGA RWAL 64,00,000 9 SH. RAM AWATER AGARWALLA 1,75,00,000 10 SH. SAGAR MALL AGARWALLA 90,00,000 11 M/S SHIVAM ENTRADE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 8,00,000 12 M/S M. L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. 4,04,25,000 TOTAL 10,38,25,00 0 4. VIDE LETTER DATED 11.11.2014, HE ASKED THE ASSE SSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF SHARE CAPITAL, SHARE PREM IUM AND 3 ITA NO.3911/DEL/2017 SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ALONG WITH CONFIRMATIONS AN D EVIDENCES FOR ADDITION MADE TO THE SHARE CAPITAL, S HARE PREMIUM AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WITH COPIES OF RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNTS. VIDE LETTER DATED 30.03.2015, THE A SSESSEE FILED REQUIRED DETAILS. FOR MAKING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES , THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT IN THE FORMS O F LETTERS TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES. THE NOTICES ISSUED U/ S 133(6) OF THE ACT DATED 17.03.2015 FIXING THE COMPLIANCES ON 23.03.2015 WERE RECEIVED UNDELIVERED WITH THE REMARKS OF POSTA L AUTHORITY NOT KNOWN IN CASE OF THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:- 1. M/S BARAK AGRO PVT. LTD. 2. M/S BARAK ISPAT PVT. LTD. 3. M/S GOLDEN PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD. 4. M/S SHIVAM ENTRADE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 5. NO REPLY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT OF THE REMAINING PARTIES WERE RECEIVED ON THE STIPULATED D ATE ON OR BEFORE 23.03.2015. EVEN TILL I.E. 31.03.2015, NO R EPLIES WITH REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FROM THESE PARTIES WERE RECEIVED . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO HELD THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO VERIFY THE INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESP ECT OF SHARE CAPITAL. HE THEREFORE, TREATED THE AMOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL 4 ITA NO.3911/DEL/2017 OF RS.10,38,25,000/- AS UNVERIFIED AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. 6. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING DETAILS TO SUBSTANTIAT E THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS:- I. CONFIRMATION BY INVESTOR COMPANY II. BANK STATEMENT OF INVESTOR COMPANY III. INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE INVESTOR COMPANY/INDIVIDUALS FOR THE AY 2012-13. IV. AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF THE INVESTOR COMPANY V. LIST OF DIRECTORS & MASTER DATA FROM ROC ONLINE SIT ES OF INVESTOR COMPANY SHOWING THEM AS ACTIVE COMPANIES. VI. SHARE ALLOTMENT ADVICE DATED 30.03.2012 ISSUED BY T HE INVESTEE COMPANY CONFIRMING ALLOTMENT OF SHARES AND ISSUE OF SHARE CERTIFICATES. VII. COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTION BY INVESTEE COMPANY REGARDING ALLOTMENT OF SHARES VIII. COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTION OF INVESTOR COMPANY FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS. 7. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE AO WITHOUT GIVING PROPER/REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY MADE ADDITION WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE A SSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE INITIAL BURDEN CAST UPON IT BY PRODU CING VARIOUS 5 ITA NO.3911/DEL/2017 DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWO RTHINESS OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, TH ERE WAS NO REASON ON THE PART OF THE AO TO MAKE ADDITION U/S 1 33(6) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ARGUED THAT ONE OF THE INVESTOR NAMELY M/S M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED WAS ASSESSED BY SAME AO, WHO HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, ACCEPTI NG THE INVESTMENT MADE BY IT IN THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SO FAR AS, OTHER INVESTORS ARE CONCERNED, IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT ALL THE PERSONS INCLUDING CORPORATE ENTITIES WHO HA VE SUBSCRIBED TO THE SHARE CAPITAL/SHARE PREMIUM ARE P ART OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP AND NO FUNDS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM ANY ENTITY OUTSIDE OF IT. 8. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE , THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF M/S M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012- 13 AND FOUND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORR ECT. HE OBSERVED FROM THE RECORD THAT DETAILS OF INVESTMENT AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2012, ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE-45 OF THE ASSESSM ENT RECORD, WHEREIN, THE INVESTMENT BY M/S M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCI ATES PRIVATE LIMITED WAS CLEARLY RECORDED AT RS.4,00,20, 750/-. HE THEREFORE ACCEPTED THE INVESTMENT OF RS.4,04,25,000 /- BY M/S 6 ITA NO.3911/DEL/2017 M.L SINGHI & ASSOCIATES P. LTD. IN THE SHARES OF TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY AS EXPLAINED AND DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE SAME. 9. SO FAR AS OTHER INVESTORS ARE CONCERNED, THE LE ARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ALL THOSE INVESTORS HAD SUFFIC IENT FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THEM. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE PROMOTE RS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS INDIVIDUALS. HE GAVE A FINDING THAT THE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH EACH INVESTOR ARE AGAIN RECEIV ED FROM ENTITIES FROM THE SAME GROUP BEING FIRM/CORPORATE. ALL THESE INVESTORS ARE TAXPAYING ENTITIES AND HAVE BEEN FILI NG INCOME TAX RETURNS ON REGULAR BASIS AND FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH T HEM HAVE BEEN INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED AS SUCH. HE DID NOT FIN D ANY DUBIOUS TRANSACTION IN THE HANDS OF THE INVESTORS C OMPANY. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF OTHER COMPANIES ALSO. 10. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A ), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,38,25,000/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 7 ITA NO.3911/DEL/2017 11. THE LEARNED DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE I N THE INSTANT CASE DID NOT FILE THE REQUISITE DETAILS/DOCUMENTS T ILL 31 ST MARCH, 2015. NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE RE TURNED UN- SERVED OR WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH. THEREFORE, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U /S 68 OF THE ACT. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I. PCIT VS NRA IRON & STEEL (P) LTD. [2019] 103 TAXMANN.COM(SC)/[2019] 262 TAXMAN 74(SC) II. PREM CASTINGS (P.) LTD. VS CIT [2017] 88 TAXMANN.CO M 189 (ALLAHABAD) III. KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING (P.) LTD. VS DCIT [20 18] 96 TAXMANN.COM 255(SC) IV. CIT VS MAF ACADEMY (P) LTD. 361 ITR 258 V. CIT VS NAVODAYA CASTLE PVT. LTD. [2014] 367 ITR 306 (DEL.) 12. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OT HER HAND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CI T(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE REQUI SITE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO ON 30 TH MARCH 2015 I.E. BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) WERE ALSO COMPLIED WITH SINCE THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE 8 ITA NO.3911/DEL/2017 WANTED TO FILE ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO ON 31. 03.2015 BUT THE AO REFUSED TO ACCEPT SUCH DETAILS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO SEND ALL THOSE DETAILS B Y SPEED POST ON 31 ST MARCH, 2015 ITSELF. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE SAM E AO IS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF M/S M.L. SINGHI & AS SOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED AND HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ACCEPTING THE INVESTMENT MADE BY IT IN THE SHARES O F ASSESSEE COMPANY, THEREFORE, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT NO REPLY W AS RECEIVED BY THE AO FROM SUCH COMPANY IN RESPECT OF NOTICE IS SUED U/S 133(6), THE AO COULD NOT HAVE MADE THE ADDITION. S INCE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS VERIFIED FROM THE ASSESSMENT REC ORDS OF M/S M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED THAT IT HA S INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,04,25,000/- IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND DETAILED EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BEFORE T HE AO OF M/S M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED FOR WH ICH HE HAD ACCEPTED THE SAME IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND WHO INCIDENTALLY IS THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO , THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,04,25,000/-. 13. SO FAR AS THE OTHER CONCERNS ARE CONCERNED, HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE INDIVIDUALS AND PRIVATE CO MPANIES ARE 9 ITA NO.3911/DEL/2017 PROMOTERS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS INDIVIDUALS. E VERY COMPANY IS HAVING HUGE SHARE CAPITAL/RESERVES AND A RE INCOME TAX PAYEE AND HAVE FILED TAX RETURN ON REGULAR BASI S AND THE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THEM HAVE BEEN INDEPENDENTLY A SSESSED AS SUCH. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTI FIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 14. SO FAR AS THE NON RECEIPT OF REPLY OF NOTICE U /S 133(6) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, HE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO V ERY LITTLE TIME GIVEN BY THE AO I.E. FROM THE DATE OF THE ISSUE AND TILL THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE BEING VERY LITTLE AND THE INVESTOR CO MPANIES ARE LOCATED AT GUWAHATI, THE INFORMATION COULD NOT REAC H THE AO WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. HOWEVER, IT IS A MATTE R OF FACT THAT ALL THE CONCERNS HAVE REPLIED TO SUCH NOTICE U/S 13 3(6) OF THE ACT. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAD TRIED TO PRO DUCE THE SAME BEFORE THE AO BUT HE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE SAM E ON ACCOUNT OF FAG END OF THE TIME BARRING ASSESSMENT. 15. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELYING O N VARIOUS DECISIONS SUBMITTED THAT MERE NON-SUBMISSIO N OF REPLY BY THE INVESTOR COMPANY IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 1 33(6) OF THE ACT OR EVEN NON-PRODUCTION OF DIRECTORS BEFORE THE AO IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE 131 OF THE ACT CANNOT JUSTIFY TH E ADDITION 10 ITA NO.3911/DEL/2017 U/S 68 OF THE ACT ESPECIALLY IN A CASE WHERE THE AS SESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIATED WITH EVIDENCE REGARDING THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF ALL THE INVESTORS AND GENUINENE SS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HE ACCORDINGLY HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE ALSO R ELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I. CIT VS WINSTRAL PETROCHEMCIALS (P) LTD. 330 ITR 603 II. CIT VS DATAWARE (P) LTD. IN ITA NO.263/2011(CAL) III. PR. CIT VS CHAIN HOUSE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. 262 TAXMAN 207 (SC) IV. CIT VS KAMDHENU STEELS & ALLOYS LTD. 361 ITR 220 (DEL.) V. MOTI ADHESIVES (P) LTD. VS ITO IN ITA NO.3133/DEL/2018 VI. PRABHATAM ADVERTISING (P) LTD. VS ACIT IN ITA NO.5798/DEL/2014 VII. DCUIT VS ATC REALTORS (P) LTD. 108 TAXMANN.COM 383(GUA) 16. SO FAR AS THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS NRA IRON & STEEL (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS DECISION IS DISTIN GUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE . 11 ITA NO.3911/DEL/2017 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND TH E LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BE FORE US. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS RAISED SH ARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM OF RS.10,38,25,000/- FROM 12 COMPANIES/INDIVIDUALS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AL READY GIVEN IN PARA-3 OF THIS ORDER. ALTHOUGH, THE ASSESSEE FIL ED THE REQUISITE DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY HIM, HOWEVER, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.10,38,25,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT CALLING FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION WERE EITHER RETURNED UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARK AS NOT KNOWN OR WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH. WE FIND IN APPEAL , THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND T HAT ONE OF THE CONCERNS M/S M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES PRIVATE L IMITED WAS ASSESSED BY THE SAME AO WHO HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 14 3(3) OF THE ACT ACCEPTING THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE M/S M. L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED IN THE SHARES OF THE A SSESSEE COMPANY. SO FAR AS THE OTHER PERSONS ARE CONCERNED , THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROU ND THAT 12 ITA NO.3911/DEL/2017 THESE ARE BASICALLY PROMOTERS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY AND THEY HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THEM FOR INVES TMENT IN SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. FURTHER, ALL THESE INVESTORS ARE TAXPAYING ENTITIES AND ARE FILING RETURN ON REG ULAR BASIS. 18. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE, WE FIND THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE ASSESSMEN T RCORD FROM M/S M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED FOR AY 2012-13 AND FOUND THAT THE AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR AY 2012-13. FROM THE SAID AS SESSMENT RECORD HE ALSO FOUND THAT DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WA S ISSUED BY THE AO, WHO EXAMINED THE SOURCE OF FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE SAME ENTITY FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF THE ASSESSE E COMPANY AND AFTER BEING SATISFIED ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT IS THE SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT POWERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARE CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CAN DO WHICH THE AO HAS FAILED TO DO. SINCE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE INSTANT CASE A FTER VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF M/S M.L. S INGHI & ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED, WHOSE ASSESSMENT WAS DO NE BY THE VERY SAME ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT IT HAS FULLY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES OF T HE ASSESSEE 13 ITA NO.3911/DEL/2017 COMPANY, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.4,04,25,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETING RS.4,04,25,000/- IS UPH ELD. 19. NOW, COMING TO THE REMAINING ELEVEN PERSONS I.E. INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATE ENTITIES, WE FIND THE AO BASICALLY MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT IN ABSENCE OF REPLY TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, HE COULD NOT VERIFY T HE INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESP ECT OF AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THOSE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE ON 3 1 ST MARCH, 2015 AND THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSE SSEE WENT TO THE AO FOR FILING OF THE SAME BUT THE AO REFUSED TO ACCEPT FOR WHICH THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE SENT BY SPEED POST ON 31 ST MARCH, 2015 ITSELF. ALTHOUGH THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GIVE N A FINDING THAT ALL THESE CONCERNS ARE PROMOTERS OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY AND HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THEM AND A RE REGULAR TAXPAYERS, HOWEVER, DUE TO NON RECEIPT OF THE INFO RMATION U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, THE AO COULD NOT VERIFY THESE DE TAILS. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS OF THE CASE AND I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE 14 ITA NO.3911/DEL/2017 REMAINING 11 PARTIES TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A D IRECTION TO CONDUCT SUCH ENQUIRIES AS HE DEEMS FIT PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/06/2021. SD/- SD/- [K.N. CHARY] [R.K.PANDA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DELHI; DATED: 30/06/2021. F{X~{T? F{X~{T? F{X~{T? F{X~{T? FA FA FA FA P.S P.SP.S P.S COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI