Shri Shaktidham Infraventure Private Limited, Bilaspur V. Pr. Commissioner of Income tax, , Bilaspur

ITA 71/RPR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7899 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G S AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 68; 263; 63; 143(3); 13; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 71/RPR/2020) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16) SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED JUNA BILASPUR, BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH - 495001 / VS. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYKAR BHAWAN, VYAPAR VIHAR, BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH - 495001 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAOCS0266M ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. S. AGRAWAL, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. K. MISHRA, CIT.DR DATE OF HEARING 29/07/2021 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06/09/2021 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, BILASPUR (PCIT IN SHORT), DATED 31.03.2020 P ASSED UNDER S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) WHEREBY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) DATED 20 .04.2017 UNDER S. 143(3) OF THE ACT CONCERNING AY 2015-16 WAS SOUG HT TO BE SET ASIDE FOR REFRAMING ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF SUPERVISORY DIRECTIONS. ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 2 - 2. AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE PCIT UNDE R S.263 OF THE ACT AND AS A COROLLARY, SOUGHT TO IMPUGN THE REVISI ONAL ORDER PASSED BY THE PCIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT. 3. THE PCIT SOUGHT TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER D ATED 20.04.2017 PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT BY WAY OF A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 26.02.2020 SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, W HICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: SUBJECT: NOTICE FOR HEARING IN RESPECT OF REVISION PROCEEDI NGS U/SEC 263 OF THE THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 YEAR 2015-16 . IN THIS REGARD, A HEARING IN THE MATTER IS FIXED ON 05/03/2020 AT 04:30 PM. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO ATTEND IN PERSON OR THROU GH AN AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND FILE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF YOUR APPLICATIO N. ATTENDANCE IS NOT NECESSARY, .IF YOU WISH THAT THE REVISION AP PLICATION BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF YOUR WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHI CH MAY BE FURNISHED IN THIS OFFICE, ON OR BEFORE THE SAID DAT E. YOU ALSO HAVE THE OPTION TO FILE YOUR SUBMISSION FROM THE E-FILIN G PORTAL USING THE LINK: INCOMETAXINDIAEFILING.GOV.IN THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE UNDERSIGNED HAS EXAM INED YOUR ASSESSMENT RECORDS FOR THE A.Y. 2015-16 AND FROM TH E EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN YOUR CASE U/S. 14 3(3} OF THE ACT DATED 20/04/2017, IT IS SEEN AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE INCOME RETURNED BY YOU WITHOUT MAKING PROPER ENQUIRIES AND VERIFICATION. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT OR DER BEING ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF REVENUE, IT IS PROPOSED TO TAKE REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 26 3 OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE. 2. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY I AM GIVING YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH YOUR SUBMISSIO N IN WRITING ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IF ANY WITH REGARD TO FOLLOWING POINTS. 2.1 THE RECORD REVEALS THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION YOU HAVE RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WORTH OF RS. ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 3 - 67,11,010/-. THE ANALYSIS OF DOCUMENTS ON RECORDS S HOWS THE FOLLOWING DETAILS S.NO. NAME AMOUNT SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND OTHER FINDINGS 01 AMRITLAL KASHYAP 1061200 CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,08,000/- AND TRANSFER AMOUNT OF RS. 9,41,224/- ON 05.01.2015 AND 21.01.2015 RESPECTIVELY. THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER RETURNED INCOME IS ONLY RS, 2,66,200/- AND AS PER BALANCE SHEET HE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 14,03,850/- ONLY IN THIS COMPANY AND HE HAS NO OTHER ASSET. 02 BALDEV RAJPOOT 271000 CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 2,70,000/- ON 15.01.2015. THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRANSACTIONS. RETURNED INCOME IS ONLY RS. 2,68,300/- AND AS PER BALANCE SHEET HE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 14,10,150/- IN THIS COMPANY ONLY AND HE HAS NO OTHER ASSET. 03 B N GUPTA 360000 CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 3,60,000/- ON 05.01.2015. THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRANSACTIONS. RETURNED INCOME IS ONLY RS. 3,18,300/- AND AS PER BALANCE SHEET HE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 13,20,000/- IN THIS COMPANY ONLY AND HE HAS NO OTHER ASSET. 04 B N GUPTA(HUF) 949910 CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,90,000/- AND TRANSFER AMOUNT OF RS. 5,85,003/- AND RS. 1,73,907/- ON 05.01,2015, 20.01.2015 AND 21.01.2015 RESPECTIVELY. THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRANSACTIONS. ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 4 - FURTHER RETURNED INCOME IS ONLY RS. 2,46,300/- AND AS PER BALANCE SHEET HE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 14,35,750/- IN THIS COMPANY ONLY AND HE HAS NO OTHER ASSET. 05 K K MISHRA 294100 CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,50,000/- AND RS. 3,15,000/- ON 21/04/2014 AND 15/01/2015 AND TRANSFER AMOUNT OF RS. 1,50,000/- ON 20/01/2015. THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER RETURNED INCOME IS ONLY RS. 3,16,200/- AND AS PER BALANCE SHEET HE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 14,79,500/- IN THIS COMPANY ONLY AND HE HAS NO OTHER ASSET. 06 KK MISHRA (HUF) 524000 CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,60,000/- ON 21.04.2014. CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 2,00,000/- AND TRANSFER AMOUNT OF RS. 1,60,000/- ON 15.01,2015 AND 20.01.2015 RESPECTIVELY. THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER RETURNED INCOME IS ONLY RS. 2,44,100/- AND AS PER BALANCE SHEET HE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 18,22,300/- IN THIS COMPANY ONLY AND HE HAS NO OTHER ASSET. 07 MADAN SAHU 459000 CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 65,000/- ON 05.01.2015 AND TRANSFER AMOUNT OF RS. 3,92,000/- ON 21.01.2015 AND 25.02.2015 RESPECTIVELY. THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER RETURNED INCOME IS ONLY RS. 2,67,300/- AND AS PER BALANCE SHEET HE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 13,68,950/- IN THIS ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 5 - COMPANY ONLY AND HE HAS NO OTHER ASSET. 08 RAJ BAHADUR TIWARI 302000 CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 3,02,000/- ON 05.01.2015. THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER RETURNED INCOME IS ONLY RS. 2,68,500/- AND AS PER BALANCE SHEET HE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 13,49,900/- IN THIS COMPANY ONLY AND HE HAS NO OTHER ASSET. 09 RAMKUMAR KASHYAP (HUF) 208000 CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,40,000/- AND RS. 2,08,000/- ON 21.04.2014 AND 05.01.2015 RESPECTIVELY. THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER RETURNED INCOME IS ONLY RS. 2,48,700/- AND AS PER BALANCE SHEET HE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 14,69,950/- IN THIS COMPANY ONLY AND HE HAS RIB OTHER ASSET. 10 RAMKUMAR KASHYAP 570000 CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 2,88,000/- AND TRANSFER AMOUNT OF RS. 1,40,000/- ON 05.01.2015 AND 20.01.2015 RESPECTIVELY. THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS, NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER RETURNED INCOME IS ONLY RS. 2,68,500/- AND AS PER BALANCE SHEET HE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 14,27,500/- IN THIS COMPANY ONLY AND HE HAS NO OTHER ASSET. 11 SHASHIKANT MISHRA 526000 CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,00,000/- ON 21.04.2014. CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 3,25,000/-AND TRANSFER AMOUNT OF RS. 1,00,000/- ON 15.01.2015 AND 20.01.2015 RESPECTIVELY. THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRANSACTIONS. NO RETURN IS ON RECORD. AS PER BALANCE ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 6 - SHEET HE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 12,85,450/- IN THIS COMPANY ONLY AND HE HAS NO OTHER ASSET. 12 SITA RAM YADAV 819800 CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 3,60,000/- AND TRANSFER AMOUNT OF RS. 6,08,039/- ON 05.01.2015, 27.02.2015, 20.01.2015 AND 03.03.2015 RESPECTIVELY. THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER RETURNED INCOME IS ONLY RS. 2,18,400/- AS PER BALANCE SHEET HE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 13,62,150/- IN THIS COMPANY ONLY AND HE HAS NO OTHER ASSET. 13 TARACHAND KASHYAP 366000 CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 2,80,000/- AND TRANSFER AMOUNT OF RS. 85,259/- ON 05.01.2015, AND 20.01.2015 RESPECTIVELY. THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER RETURNED INCOME IS ONLY RS. 2,68, 300/- AND AS PER BALANCE SHEET HE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 14,29,800/- IN THIS COMPANY ONLY ARID HE HAS NO OTHER ASSET. TOTAL 6711010 FROM THE RECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT AO HAS NOT MADE PR OPER EXAMINATION/ENQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO THE SOURCE OF S HARE APPLICATION MONEY WHEREAS THESE AMOUNT WERE GOT TRA NSFERRED FROM THE ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICANTS EITHER AFTER D EPOSITING CASH ON THE ACCOUNTS OR TRANSFERRED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICANTS. THE AO HAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED/VERIFI ED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHARE APPLICANTS AND GENUINENES S OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE AO HAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED THE RETURN OF INCOME, BALANCE SHEET, COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND BA NK STATEMENTS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. THE AO HAS NOT PROPERLY VE RIFIED AND EXAMINED THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE. ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 7 - 2.2 RECORD REVEALS THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED TOTAL FUN D OF RS. 3,96,52,350/- BY WAY OF SHARE CAPITAL { RS. 86,29,2 90(SHARE CAPITAL) + RS. 3,10,23,060(SECURITY PREMIUM)}. THE AO HAS NOT VERIFIED AND EXAMINED THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE. 2.3 RECORD REVEALS THAT THERE IS INVENTORY OF LAND OF RS. 3,03,07,934/-. THE AO HAS NOT VERIFIED AND EXAMINED THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE. 2.4 P&L ACCOUNT REVEALS THAT THERE ARE PURCHASES O F RS. 1,85,27,550/- AGAINST SALE OF GOODS OF RS. 1,77,15, 556/- I.E. SHOWING LOSS. THE AO HAS NOT VERIFIED AND EXAMINED THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE. 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LAPSES ON THE PART OF THE A O AND LACK OF EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ISSUES AND POINTS, 1 FIND THAT THE ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS ON 20/04/2017 TO BE ERRONEOUS I N SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HENC E, IT IS PROPOSED TO REVISE THE SAID ORDER OF ASSESSMENT BY VIRTUE OF THE POWER VESTED IN ME U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 4. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT YOUR WRITTEN EXPLANA TION ALONGWITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IF ANY AS STATE D ABOVE ON OR BEFORE 05/03/2020 AT 4.30 PM IN MY ABOVE MENTIONED OFFICE ADDRESS. KINDLY NOTE THAT IN THIS REGARD NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT SHALL BE GRANTED AND IN THE CASE OF NONCOMPLIANCE F ROM YOUR SIDE, IT SHALL BE PRESUMED THAT YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE REVISIONARY PROCEEDING SHALL BE FINA LIZED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY DEFENDED THE ACTION OF THE AO. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AS REPRODUCED IN THE REVISIONAL ORDER IS ALSO REPRODUCED HEREUNDE R: 4. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED, SHRI LAXMAN K HELDA, DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY AND SHRI VINOD MITTAL, CA AND AR ATT ENDED AND SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH IS PLACED ON REC ORD. CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH HIM AND HE WAS HEARD. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSES HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER :- I. THAT THE PROPOSAL FOR ACTION U/S 263, ASSUMING T HAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DATED ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 8 - 20/04/2017 IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IS OBJECTED AND HIGHLY UNJUSTIF IED. SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS THERE IS NO ERROR WHICH IS PREJUDICIA L TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. PRAYED TO DROP THE PROCEEDINGS AS BELOW 2. ALL THE ISSUES IN NOTICE U/S 263 WERE ENQUIRED I N DEPTH? EXPLAINED, AO APPLIED MIND AND CAME TO CONCLUSION: ALL THE ISSUES (PARA NO. 2.1 TO 2.4) WERE EXPLAINED DURING ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. AFTER IN DEPTH EXAMINATION ONLY, THE L D ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO CONCLUSION AD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ACCORDINGLY. SUBMITTED AS BELOW :- PARA 2.1 - RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY THE FACTS ARE ON THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS R ECEIVED RS. 63,11,010/- (TOTAL RECEIPT WAS OUT OF WHICH RS. 4,00,000/- WAS REPAID AND AGAIN RECEIVED BACK, HENC E, NET RECEIPT WAS RS. 63,11,010/-) AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS OF SHARE APPLICANTS T O DISCHARGE THE BURDEN CASTED UPON THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO IDENTITY, CAPACITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT, AND G ENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION :- 1. CONFIRMATION 2. COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN 3. COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. 4. CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET. 5. COPY OF BAN ACCOUNT. 6. APART FROM THAT, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER RECO RDED STATEMENT ON OATH FROM ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS. AL L THE NECESSARY INFORMATION & EXPLANATION TAKEN FROM THEM. NECESSAR Y ENQUIRIES MADE FOR IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION INCLUDING SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION M ONEY. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED S OURCE OF DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. A LIST EXPLAINING THOSE DETAILS IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR KIND REFEREN CE. THEREFORE, WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE ALSO, THE ORDER OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ERRONEOUS IS SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN TEREST OF REVENUE. THE LIST SO SUBMITTED IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- S. NO. NAME AMOUNT SOURCE 01 AMRITLAL KASHYAP 1061200 1,08,000 9,41,224 CASH FROM OWN PAST SAVINGS LOAN GIVEN TO M/S S K MINERALS IN EARLIER ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 9 - 11,976 YEARS, RECEIVED BACK BANK BALANCE 02 BALDEV RAJPOOT 271000 2,70,000 1,000/- CASH FROM OWN PAST SAVINGS BANK BALANCE 03 B N GUPTA 36000 3,60,000 CASH FROM OWN PAST SAVINGS 04 B N GUPTA(HUF) 949910 1,90,000 5,85,003/- 1,73,907/- CASH FROM OWN PAST SAVINGS LOAN GIVEN TO SHRI LAXMAN KEDIA IN EARLIER YEARS, RECEIVED BACK IN EARLIER YEARS, RECEIVED BACK LOAN GIVEN TO SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR MISHRA IN EARLIER YEARS, RECEIVED BACK 05 K K MISHRA 294100 2,94,100/ CASH FROM OWN PAST SAVINGS 06 KK MISHRA (HUF) 364000 2,00,000 1,60,000/- 4,000/- CASH FROM OWN PAST SAVINGS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY GIVEN TO SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURES PVT. LTD. DURING THE YEAR, RECEIVED BACK, RS.1,60,000/- WAS DEPOSITED AS CASH ON 21.04.2014 BANK BALANCES 07 MADAN SAHU 459000 65,000/- 1,25,000/- 2,67,000/- 2000 CASH FROM OWN PAST SAVINGS LOAN GIVEN TO SHRI NISHANT KHANDELWAL IN EARLIER YEARS, RECEIVED BACK LOAN GIVEN TO BALAJI BUILDERS EARLIER YEARS, RECEIVED BACK BANK BALANCE 08 RAJ BAHADUR TIWARI 302000 3,02,000/- CASH FROM OWN PAST SAVINGS ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 10 - 09 RAMKUMAR KASHYAP (HUF) 208000 2,08,000/- CASH FROM OWN PAST SAVINGS 10 RAMKUMAR KASHYAP 430000 2,88,000/- 1,40,000/- 2000/- CASH FROM OWN PAST SAVINGS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY GIVEN FROM ASSESSEES HUF A/C TO SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. DURING THE YEAR, RECEIVED BACK, IN ASSESSEES A/C RS.1,40,000/- WAS DEPOSITED AS CASH IN ASSESSEES (HUF) A/C ON 21.04.2014 21.04.2014 BANK BALANCE 11 SHASHIKANT MISHRA 526000 3,25,000/- 1,00,000/- 1,000/- CASH FROM OWN PAST SAVINGS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY GIVEN TO SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURES PVT. LTD. DURING THE YEAR, RECEIVED BACK, RS.1,00,000/- WAS DEPOSITED AS CASH ON 21.04.2014 BANK BALANCE 12 SITA RAM YADAV 819800 2,10,000/- 3,41,039 2,67,000/- 1,761/- CASH FROM OWN PAST SAVINGS LOAN GIVEN TO L P KHEDIA IN EARLIER YEARS, RECEIVED BACK LOAN GIVEN TO BALAJI BUILDERS EARLIER YEARS, RECEIVED BACK BANK BALANCE 13 TARACHAND KASHYAP 366000 2,80,000/- 85,259/- 741/- CASH FROM OWN PAST SAVINGS LOAN GIVEN TO L P KHEDIA IN EARLIER YEARS, RECEIVED BACK BANK BALANCE ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 11 - 2.2 PARA 2.2 - REGARDING SHARE CAPITAL & SECURITY P REMIUM :- DETAILS OF SHARE CAPITAL & SECURITY PREMIUM ARE AS UNDER :- S. NO. PARTICULARS OPENING BALANCE RECEIVED FY 2015-16 CLOSING BALANCE 1 SHARE CAPITAL 72,27,480/- 14,01,800/- 86,29,290/- 2 SECURITY PREMIUM 2,61,16.760/- 49,06,300/- 3,10,23,060/- TOTAL 3,33,44,240/- 63,08,100/- 3,96,52,350/- FROM ABOVE CHART IT IS CLEAR THAT DURING THE YEAR A SSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FRESH SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WHICH WAS DU LY VERIFIED AND EXAMINED BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER. DETAILS A RE FURNISHED AT PARA 2.1 ABOVE. THEREFORE WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE ALSO, THE ORDER OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. PARA 2.3 - REGARDING INVENTORY OF LAND SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS INVENTORY OF LAND OF RS. 3 ,03,07,934/-, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01-04-2014 - 2,95,77,814/- ADD : LAND PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR - 7,30,12 0/- TOTAL - 3,03,07,934/- SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED PURCHASE DEED AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS OF LAND PURCHASE OF RS. 7,30,120/-. LD ASSESSING OFFICER EX AMINED THE DOCUMENT AND SOURCE. COPY OF PURCHASE DEED AND COPY OF ACCOUNTS ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR KIND REFERENCE. THEREFORE WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE ALSO, THE ORDER OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFI CER IS NOT ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. 2.4 PARA 2.4 - REGARDING LOSS IN TRADING ACCOUNT YOUR HONOUR OBSERVED THAT THEE ARE PURCHASES OF RS. 1,85,27,550/- AGAINST SALE OF GOODS OF RS. 1,77,15,556/- I.E. SHO WING LOSS. BUT THIS IS NOT CORRECT, IN FACT ASSESSEE HAS EARNED GR OSS PROFIT OF RS. 3,87,067/-. HORIZONTAL TRADING ACCOUNT IS PRODUCED AS UNDER FOR READY REFERENCE :- ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 12 - FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS EARNED GROSS PROFIT. THEREFORE WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE ALSO, THE ORDER OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS PRAYED TO DROP THE PROPOSAL. 5. THE PCIT, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEDE TO THE SUBMISS IONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ENQUIRIES IN RELATION TO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WH ICH HE SHOULD HAVE, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE CREDITWORTHINESS, BONAFIDES AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE APPLICAT ION MONEY WAS NOT EXAMINED IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE. THE PCIT NARRA TED THE REASONS FOR HIS DISSATISFACTION ON THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED ON SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS PER PARA 5(A) OF HIS ORDER. A S PER PARA 6 OF HIS ORDER, HOWEVER, THE OTHER POINT, NAMELY, THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARTICULARS AMOUNT PARTICULARS AMOUNT OPENING STOCK SALES LAND 2,95,77,814/- COAL 1,77,15,556/- COAL 31,46,214/- 3,27,24,028/- CLOSING STOCK PURCHASE LAND 3,03,07,934/- LAND 7,30,180/- COAL 36,15,155/- 3,39,23,089/- COAL 1,77,97,430/- 1,85,27,550/- GROSS PROFIT 3,87,067/- 5,16,38,645/- 5,16,38,645/- ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 13 - INVENTORY OF LAND AND LOSS IN TRADING ACCOUNT WAS A CCEPTED AND DROPPED. 6. THE PCIT THUS ALLEGED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF AO IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THE GROUNDS OF INADEQUATE ENQUIRIES WITH REFERENCE TO EXPLANATION (2) TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE REVISIONAL ORDER THE PCIT, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGITATING THE SUPERVISOR Y JURISDICTION USURPED BY THE PR.CIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE PCIT AS WELL AS THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION AS WEL L AS THE CASE LAWS CITED. THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT BY THE PCIT AND REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED AS A SEQUEL THERET O SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT UNDER S.143(3) OF TH E ACT IS IN CONTROVERSY. 8.1 SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION VESTED UNDER SECTION 2 63 OF THE ACT ENABLES THE CONCERNED PR.CIT/CIT TO REVIEW THE RECO RDS OF ANY PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE AO. IT EMPOWERS THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER CONCERNED TO CALL FOR AND E XAMINE THE RECORDS OF ANOTHER PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, THEN HE MAY (AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTE R MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSA RY), PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUST IFY, INCLUDING THE ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT OR CANC ELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING AFRESH ASSESSMENT. THUS, THE REVISIONAL ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 14 - POWERS CONFERRED ON THE PR.CIT/CIT UNDER S.263 OF T HE ACT ARE OF VERY WIDE AMPLITUDE WITH A VIEW TO ADDRESS THE REVE NUE RISKS WHICH ARE OBJECTIVELY JUSTIFIABLE. 8.2 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE THAT EMERGES FOR ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER THE PR.CIT UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF REVISONARY POWERS IS ENTITLED TO UPSET THE FINALITY OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED BEFORE THE AO WHER E THE AO HAS ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED ERROR IN PASSING ASSESSMENT ORD ER WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION OF SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED. IMPLICIT IN THE QUESTION IS THE SCOPE OF POWERS OF REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER IN THE EVENT OF ALLEGED INADEQUACY OF ENQUIRY INTO VARIOUS ASPECTS OF AN ISSUE. 8.3 ON PERUSAL OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE (SCN) DATED 26.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER PROPOSING TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.04.2017 PASSED BY AO UNDE R S.143(3) OF THE ACT, WE NOTICE THAT THE PR.CIT IS ESSENTIALLY D ISSATISFIED WITH THE DEGREE OF INQUIRY MADE IN RESPECT OF ISSUES RAISED THEREIN. 8.4 THE SOLITARY PREMISE TO DISPLACE THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT IS INADEQUACY IN ENQUIRY ON SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. AS VOCIFEROUSLY POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SHARE AP PLICATION MONEY TO THE TUNE OF RS.63,08,100/- WERE RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR FROM CERTAIN PARTIES. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED SEVERAL DOCUMENTS, SUCH AS, CONFIRMATION, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN, COMPUTATION OF INCOME, C APITAL ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET AND COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT ETC. TO SUPP ORT THE IDENTITY, CAPACITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. THE AO DID NOT MERELY ACCEPT THESE EVIDENCES OF REC EIPTS SUMMARILY BUT ALSO ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE SHARE APPLICANTS IN EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER S.131 OF THE ACT. THE REQUISITE INFORM ATION WAS ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 15 - COLLECTED FROM THE APPLICANTS AND THE STATEMENTS OF THE APPLICANTS WERE RECORDED ON OATH. THUS, A DEEP ENQUIRY WAS CO NDUCTED INTO THE SOURCE OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR FOR WHICH PURPOSE, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTI NY THROUGH CASS. IT WAS THUS CONTENDED THAT THE SOURCE OF SHARE CAPI TAL MONEY WAS FULLY TRACED BY THE AO TO HIS SATISFACTION AS CONTE MPLATED UNDER S.68 OF THE ACT. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE PCIT IS MERELY DISSATISFIED WITH THE DEGREE OF ENQUIRY IN R ELATION TO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM HIS POINT OF VIEW WHICH IS N OT PERMISSIBLE UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT. IT IS FURTHER CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PCIT HIMSELF HAS CATEGORICALLY AGREED THAT IT IS NOT A C ASE OF COMPLETE LACK OF ENQUIRY BUT A CASE OF INADEQUATE ENQUIRY AS PERCEIVED BY HIM. IT IS THUS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF J URISDICTION BY THE PCIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT ANY LEGAL FO UNDATION AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REVISIONAL ORDER IS REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 9. IN SHORT, AS PER THE REVISIONAL ORDER, THE PCIT ALLEGED THAT PROPER ENQUIRY WAS NOT ADEQUATELY MADE ON THE NATUR E AND SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE. 10. ON FACTS, WE NOTICE THAT IT IS DEMONSTRATED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE HELP OF SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES AS PLACED BEFORE AO THAT REQUISITE ENQUIRIES WERE MADE TOWARD S IDENTITY, CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. THE ISSUE WAS VERY MUCH PRESENT T O THE MIND OF THE AO. THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE ALSO SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE SIMULTANEOUSLY NOTI CE A PERTINENT FACT THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE SUMMONED BY THE AO FOR THIS PURPOSE AND WERE EXAMINED ON OATH UNDER S.131 OF TH E ACT TO WEIGH THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES. ON SUCH FACTS, ONE CANNOT SAY THAT IT IS A CASE OF NO ENQUIRY INTO THE SUBJECT MATTER BUT IT IS RATHER A CASE OF REASONABLE ENQUIRY. THE AO HAS NOT MECHANI CALLY ACCEPTED ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 16 - THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BUT HAS EMBARKED UPON AN ENQUI RY CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO THE WISDOM OF THE AO ALBEIT NOT MATCHING FROM THE IDEALISTIC POINT OF VIEW OF THE REVISIONAL COMMISSI ONER. THE RECORDS SUGGEST THAT THE AO CANNOT BE BLAMED TO HAV E ACTED IN A PERFUNCTORY MANNER MERELY BECAUSE THE EXPECTATIONS OF REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER ARE PURPORTEDLY NOT MEET. 11. ADVERTING TO THE PERSPECTIVE ON POSITION OF LAW , SECTION 68 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHEN ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITE D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, HE IS EXPECTED TO OFFE R AN EXPLANATION ABOUT ITS NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF TO THE SATISFAC TION OF THE AO. THUS, THE INITIAL ONUS IS INDISPUTABLY ON THE ASSES SEE TO ESTABLISH THERE INGREDIENTS (A) IDENTITY (B) CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR FOR ADVANCEMENT THE MONEY ( PRIMA FACIE CREDITWORTHINESS) AND (C) GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. THE LAW HOWEVER DOES N OT PRESCRIBE ANY QUANTITATIVE TEST TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE ONUS IN A PARTICULAR CASE HAS BEEN DISCHARGED OR NOT. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. IN SOME CASES, THE ONU S MAY BE HEAVY WHEREAS IN OTHERS IT MAY BE NOMINAL. THERE IS NOTH ING RIGID ABOUT IT AS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT V. DURGA PRASAD MORE, [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). SIGNIFICANTLY, S. 68 OF THE ACT USES THE EXPRESSION MAY AND THUS ENABL ES THE AO TO EXERCISE STATUTORY DISCRETION IN A PRAGMATIC AND JU DICIOUS MANNER, FOR OR AGAINST, THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IS THUS NOT O BLIGED TO INVOKE THE SPHERE OF S.68 OF THE ACT IN ALL CASES WHERE TH E SOURCE IS NOT PROVED TO THE LAST MILE. THIS APART, IT IS WELL SE TTLED THAT WHILE DISCHARGING THE ONUS CAST UPON THE ASSESSE, IT IS N OT THE STRINGENT REQUIREMENT OF LAW THAT ASSESSEE NEEDS ALSO TO PROV E THE SOURCE OF SOURCE I.E. MONEY SOURCED BY THE LENDER TO PROVIDE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH T HE MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE SOURCE BELONGING TO THIRD PARTY, HE CANNOT BE ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 17 - BURDENED WITH A FURTHER ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE SO URCE FROM WHICH SUCH THIRD PARTY HAS BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN MONEY. US EFUL REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD CAN BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS (SUPRA) AND ALSO NEMI CHAND KOTHARI (SUPRA); ITO VS. DIZA HOLDINGS (P) LTD. 255 ITR 573 (KERALA) AND SO ON. 12. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE TENETS OF LAW RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT CASE AS DIGESTED ABOVE, WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE FACTS EMERGING FROM THE RECORD. AS NOTED, THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED NOT ONLY THE SOURCE OF LOAN OBTAINED BUT HAS ALSO ADEQUATELY DEM ONSTRATED BEFORE THE AO THE SOURCE OF MONEY IN THE HANDS OF THE SHAR E APPLICANTS. A SMALL PORTION OF CASH DEPOSITED BY LENDER DOESNT N ECESSARILY SIGNIFY ANY COLLUSION WITH ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT FACTS WERE PRESENT BEFORE AO AND WERE SCRUTINIZED. THUS, THE BURDEN O F PROOF CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE WAS BROADLY DISCHARGED. NEEDLESS TO SAY, SUCH ONUS CAN SELDOM BE DISCHARGED TO THE HILT. IN THIS BACKGROUND, A PRESUMPTION CAN BE SAFELY DRAWN THAT THE AO WAS ARM ED WITH REASONABLE EVIDENCES TO DRAW SATISFACTION WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS RECEIPT OF SHARE AP PLICATION MONEY FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AND CONSEQUENTLY IT CAN BE SAI D THAT THE STATUTORY DISCRETION WAS EXERCISED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON TELL-TALE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH IS REGARD. THE ACTION OF THE AO THUS CANNOT BE WHOLLY DISREGARDED AS UNTENABLE OR IMPLAUSIBLE MORE SO, WHERE SHARE APPLICANTS ATTENDE D THE ENQUIRY AND DEPOSED ON OATH FOR THE SUBSCRIPTION MADE. THE SHARE APPLICANTS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND CONFIRMED THE SU BSCRIPTION. ON THESE FACTS, A QUESTION WOULD ARISE AS TO WHETHER I T WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE AO TO DISREGARD SUCH EVIDENCES AND HOLD TH E EXPLANATION TO BE UNSATISFACTORY IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT OR NOT. HAVING REGARD TO THE PREROGATIVE VESTED WITH THE AO TOWARDS THE ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 18 - EXTENT AND MANNER OF INQUIRY FOR DRAWING SATISFACTI ON, IT IS DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO IS UNINTELLIGIBLE . IN OUR VIEW, THE AO HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY ERROR IN NOT CHASING WILL O THE WISP IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY BRAZEN CIRCUMSTANCES. IN THE LI GHT OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION, THE BASIS OF ISSUANCE OF SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE TENABLE IN LAW IN THE PECULIAR SET OF FACTS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTIO N UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT WILL HAVE TO BE REGARDED AS WITHOUT AUTHORI TY OF LAW. 13 AS NOTED, THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAVE UNEQUIVOCALL Y CONFIRMED THE SHARE SUBSCRIPTION. IN SUCH FACTS, IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO DISCREDIT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED PER SE AND MAKE ADDITIONS IN THE REALM OF S.68 OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE IN PLACE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS WHERE SOURCE OF SOURCE ALLEG EDLY REMAINS UNPROVED IN THE OPINION OF THE PCIT. THEREFORE PUR PORTED INADEQUACY IN INQUIRY AS ALLEGED, CANNOT BE STATED TO BE ERRONEOUS PER SE IN SO FAR AS ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, EVEN IF, SUCH INACTION OF AO TOWARDS FULLER ENQUIRY IS BRANDED AS PREJUDICIA L TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE MANDATORY TWIN CONDITI ONS OF SECTION 263 IS ALSO NOT FOUND TO BE FULFILLED WHEN TESTED O N THE TOUCHSTONE OF TAXABILITY OF SHARE APPLICATION MOENY IN THE HAN DS OF ASSESSEE ON THE GROUNDS OF UNPROVED SOURCE OF SOURCE. WHERE TH E AO HAS EXERCISED ITS QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS AND ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION WITH REASONABLE APPLICATION OF MIND, SUCH ACTION CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE AS ERRONEOUS ETC. SIMPLY BECAUSE THE REVISIONAL COM MISSIONER DOES NOT FEEL SATISFIED WITH EXTENT OF THE INQUIRY AND E XPECTS OBSERVANCE OF HIGHER STANDARDS IN THIS REGARD. WHERE THE ASSES SEE HAS FURNISHED RELEVANT MATERIAL AND OFFERED EXPLANATION, THE ASSE SSMENT CANNOT BE ORDINARILY SET ASIDE FOR FRAMING BETTER ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ANY OBJECTIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD ADVERSE TO THE ASSESSE E. WE THUS CONCUR WITH THE PLEA ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT S.263 ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 19 - PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE INFLICTED UPON THE ASSESSEE I N THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 14. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH VIEW, WE ALSO TAKE NOTE OF T HE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. NIRAV MODI 390 ITR 292 (BOM.) WHERE IN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CANC EL THE ORDER PASSED UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT WAS UPHELD. THUS, DR IVEN BY THE PRECEDENT, WHERE THE INQUIRY TOWARDS SOURCE OF SOU RCE IS NOT FOUND TO BE THE SACROSANCT REQUIREMENT OF LAW, THE ALLEGE D INADEQUACY IN THIS RESPECT SHOULD NOT BE FASTENED ON THE ASSESSEE . NOTWITHSTANDING, ANY DOUBT IN THE CAPACITY OF THE L ENDER WOULD ORDINARILY INVITE ACTION AGAINST THE LENDER WHO IS SHOWN TO HAVE RECEIVED MAJOR COMPONENT OF MONEY THROUGH BANKING C HANNEL FROM OTHER SOURCE PRIOR TO ITS LENDING AND IS ALSO A REG ULAR TAX ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE PREJUDICE CONTEMPLATED UNDER S.263 O F THE ACT, IF ANY, IS QUA THE LENDER AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. 15. WHILE CONCLUDING, WE ARE ALSO ALIVE TO CLAUSE ( A) OF EXPLANATION (2) TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015 WHICH SEEKS TO CLARIFY THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN THE EVENT OF ABSENCE OF INQUIRY WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE. WITH ALL THE SUBJECTIVITY INHERENTLY BUILT IN SUCH PHRASE, THE AFORESAID CLAUSE ONLY PROVIDES FOR SITUATION WHERE INQUIRIES OR VERIFICATIONS SHOULD BE MADE BY A REASONABLE AND PRUDENT OFFICER IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CASE. SUCH C LAUSE CANNOT BE READ TO AUTHORIZE OR GIVE UNFETTERED POWERS TO THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER TO REVISE EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF INADE QUACY IN AN ORDER FROM A PERFECTIONIST POINT OF VIEW. THOUGH T HE LAW IS SAME FOR ALL, HOWEVER, NO TWO PERSONS THINK ALIKE AND TH ERE COULD BE VARIANCE IN THEIR ANALYSIS, UNDERSTANDING AND APPLI CATION OF LAW IN ITA NO. 71/RPR/2020 (SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 20 - SIMILAR FACTUAL MATRIX. ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION OWING TO SUCH VARIANCE WOULD MAKE EVERY ORDER UNDER REVIEW AS SUS CEPTIBLE AND THUS EXERCISE OF REVIEW ITSELF WOULD BE RENDERED AR BITRARY. THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CLAUSE IS THUS ESSENTIALLY CON TEXTUAL. AS OBSERVED IN THE PRECEDING PARAS, EVEN IF FULLER INQ UIRY WITH REGARD TO SOURCE OF SOURCE IS OMITTED TO BE CARRIED OUT, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE AUTOMATICALLY FASTE NED ON THE ASSESSEE. NO OBJECTIVE MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT O N RECORD TO IMPLICATE THE ASSESSEE PER SE EXCEPT POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER ENQUIRY. THUS, SEEN FROM ANY ANGLE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PAS SED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE FRUSTRATED IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES. REVISIONAL ORDER THUS REQUIRES TO BE QUASHED AND SE T ASIDE. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (PRADIP KUMA R KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RAIPUR: DATED 06/09/2021 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 / DR, ITAT, RAIPUR 5. 267 8 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER 4 SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT 4 RAIPUR (ON TOUR) ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 0 6 /09/2021 BY PLACING THE RESULT ON THE NOTICE BOARD AS PER RULE 34(5) OF THE INCOME TAX (A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULE, 1963.