M/s Metal Craft Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. I.T.O.,Ward-12(3), Kolkata

ITA 800/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4624 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2021
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S M SURANA SH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Audit objection; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record; Right to appeal; Onus to prove; Revenue expenditure; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 14A; 133(6); 250; 113; 43; 48; 13; 153; 119; 22; 131; 68; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA VIRTUAL COURT HEARING (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI ABY T. VARKEY, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD............................................................APPELLANT 1B, ELGIN ROAD KOLKATA 700 020 [PAN : AAGCM 6979 D] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(3), KOLKATA..................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI S.M. SURANA, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI TAJIDER PAL SINGH, CIT, D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JANUARY 6 TH , 2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 10 TH , 2021 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 4, (HEREINAFTER THE LD. CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 11/03/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND IS IN THE BUSINESS OF ENGINEERING GOODS. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 DISCLOSING NIL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 27/03/2015 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.5,15,00,000/-, BEING ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL INTRODUCED LONG WITH PREMIUM AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND FURTHER MAKING A DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 2.1. THE LD. PR. CIT, ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 14/03/2016 ASKING THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO SHOWCAUSE WHY THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 27/03/2015 SHOULD NOT BE REVISED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE GAVE A DETAILED REPLY. AFTER CONSIDERING THIS REPLY, THE LD. PR. CIT PASSED AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, HOLDING AS FOLLOWS:- CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND AS PER SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT MAKING INQUIRIES OR VERIFICATIONS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AND THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED ON 21.03.2015 STANDS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND IS SET ASIDE DENOVO WITH A DIRECTION TO AO TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS INVESTORS. A.O. IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION, IDENTITY OF INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITING TIME BARRING DATE. THE A.O. MUST PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO MEET NATURAL JUSTICE, EQUITY AND FAIRNESS. 2.1.1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 13/05/2016. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 2.2. THE LD. PR. CIT ISSUED ANOTHER PROPOSING TO REVISE THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT, DT. 13/05/2016. AFTER RECEIVING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. PR. CIT, PASSED A SECOND 263 ORDER ON 11/03/2019. IN THIS ORDER, AT PARA 7, HE HELD AS FOLLOWS: 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUE POINTED OUT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NEEDS VERIFICATION. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE POSITION OF LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE INSTANT CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPLANATION 2(E) BELOW SECTION 263 (1) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS SET ASIDE ON THE ISSUE AS OUTLINED IN PARA 2 ABOVE. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCES WHICH IT MAY CLAIM. THE AO IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO ADJUDICATE THE SAID ISSUE DE NOVO AND PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW. 3. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. S.M. SURANA, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS, IN HIS SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/263 OF THE ACT, FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT, IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 31 /03/2016 [FIRST REVISIONARY ORDER]. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND BY THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT GONE BEYOND THESE DIRECTIONS. HE FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING INTO 256 PAGES AND D THE ATTENTION OF THIS BENCH TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 04/04/2016, DURING THE COURSE OF THE SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH DETAILS ON 12/04/2016. HE POIN TED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT THEY HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES AND THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO 2 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITING TIME BARRING DATE. THE A.O. MUST PROVIDE SUFFICIENT ING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO MEET NATURAL JUSTICE, EQUITY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED A FRESH ORDER U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 13/05/2016. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,55,560/ CIT ISSUED ANOTHER SHOWCAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 16/01/2019 PROPOSING TO REVISE THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT, DT. 13/05/2016. AFTER RECEIVING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. PR. CIT, PASSED A SECOND 263 11/03/2019. IN THIS ORDER, AT PARA 7, HE HELD AS FOLLOWS: - 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUE POINTED OUT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NEEDS VERIFICATION. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE POSITION OF LAW AND FACTS AND F THE INSTANT CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPLANATION 2(E) BELOW SECTION 263 (1) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF ENQUIRY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SET ASIDE ON THE ISSUE AS OUTLINED IN PARA 2 ABOVE. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCES WHICH IT MAY CHOOSE TO RELY UPON FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS OWN CLAIM. THE AO IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO ADJUDICATE THE SAID ISSUE DE NOVO AND PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. S.M. SURANA, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS, IN HIS SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/263 OF THE ACT, FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT, IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DT. /03/2016 [FIRST REVISIONARY ORDER]. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND BY THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT S ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THAT HE COULD NOT HAVE GONE BEYOND THESE DIRECTIONS. HE FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING INTO 256 PAGES AND D THE ATTENTION OF THIS BENCH TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 04/04/2016, DURING THE COURSE OF THE SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH DETAILS ON 12/04/2016. HE TED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF AND THAT THEY HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITING TIME BARRING DATE. THE A.O. MUST PROVIDE SUFFICIENT ING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO MEET NATURAL JUSTICE, EQUITY AND PASSED A FRESH ORDER U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 1,55,560/ -. SHOWCAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 16/01/2019 PROPOSING TO REVISE THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT, DT. 13/05/2016. AFTER RECEIVING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. PR. CIT, PASSED A SECOND 263 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUE POINTED OUT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NEEDS VERIFICATION. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE POSITION OF LAW AND FACTS AND F THE INSTANT CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPLANATION 2(E) BELOW SECTION 263 (1) LACK OF ENQUIRY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SET ASIDE ON THE ISSUE AS OUTLINED IN PARA 2 ABOVE. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUCE CHOOSE TO RELY UPON FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS OWN CLAIM. THE AO IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO ADJUDICATE THE SAID ISSUE DE NOVO AND PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. S.M. SURANA, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS, IN HIS SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/263 OF THE ACT, FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT, IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DT. /03/2016 [FIRST REVISIONARY ORDER]. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND S ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THAT HE COULD NOT HAVE GONE BEYOND THESE DIRECTIONS. HE FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING INTO 256 PAGES AND D REW THE ATTENTION OF THIS BENCH TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 04/04/2016, DURING THE COURSE OF THE SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH DETAILS ON 12/04/2016. HE TED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF AND THAT THEY HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO THESE SUMMONS AND THAT THE TOOK HIS BENCH THROUGH THE COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED ON OATH, WHICH ARE AT PAGE 173 TO 209 OF THE PAPER BOOK ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED ALL THE EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM AND AFTER DETAILED E XAMINATION AND INVESTIGATION EVIDENCES, HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND NOT MADE ANY ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 4.1. HE REFERRED TO THE IMPUGNED SECOND ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT NOWHERE IN THIS ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE THAT THE DIRECTI ONS GIVEN IN THE FIRST HE REFERRED TO PARA 7 OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 11/03/2019 [SECOND REVISIONARY ORDER] AND POINTED OUT THAT THE VERIFICATION. HE ARGUED THAT THIS IS NOT A U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER POINTS OUT THAT THE TAKEN PLACE IS LACK OF ENQUIRY AND THAT THIS ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONDUCTED THROUGH ENQUIRY NOT POINTED OUT ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/263 OF THE ACT ON 13/05/2016 AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER PASSED BY T BAD IN LAW. COMING TO EXPLANATION SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DIRECTION BY THE CBDT WHICH HAD NOT BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED U/S 119 OF THE ACT, AND HENCE, T INVOKING THE SAME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL ISSUES, THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:- OMKAR INFRACOM INTENT DEALERS PVT. LTD. V. ITO IN ITA NO. 2179/KOL/2019, DT. 20/03/2020 AMRITRASHI INFRA PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT IN ITA NO. 838/KOL/2019, DT. 12/08/2020 4.1.1. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIT VS. K.L. AHUJA REPORTED IN THE ITO PASSES AN ORDER, NOT ON HIS OWN DISCRETION OR WISDOM BUT DIRECTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE, IT WOULD IN FACT AMOUNT 3 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD THAT THE STATEMENTS OF ALL THESE PERSONS WERE RECORDED ON OATH. TOOK HIS BENCH THROUGH THE COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED ON OATH, WHICH ARE AT PAGE 173 TO 209 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS WELL AS THE DOCUMENTS FILED AND ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED ALL THE EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM AND AFTER DETAILED XAMINATION AND INVESTIGATION EVIDENCES, HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND NOT MADE ANY HE REFERRED TO THE IMPUGNED SECOND ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT NOWHERE IN THIS ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE ONS GIVEN IN THE FIRST ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WERE NOT FOLLOWED. HE REFERRED TO PARA 7 OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 11/03/2019 [SECOND AND POINTED OUT THAT THE LD. PR. CIT STATES THAT CASH CREDITS NEED VERIFICATION. HE ARGUED THAT THIS IS NOT A LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE GROUND FOR INVOKING POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER POINTS OUT THAT THE GROUND ON WHICH THE REVISION HAS TAKEN PLACE IS LACK OF ENQUIRY AND THAT THIS ASPECT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONDUCTED THROUGH ENQUIRY . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/263 OF THE ACT ON 13/05/2016 AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE LD. PR. CIT ON 11/03/2019 IS BAD IN LAW. COMING TO EXPLANATION TO SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, HE IS NO DIRECTION BY THE CBDT WHICH HAD NOT BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED U/S 119 OF THE ACT, AND HENCE, T HE LD. PR. CIT IS WRONG IN INVOKING THE SAME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL ISSUES, THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE OMKAR INFRACOM (P) LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 896/KOL/2019, DT. 18/03/2020 INTENT DEALERS PVT. LTD. V. ITO IN ITA NO. 2179/KOL/2019, DT. 20/03/2020 AMRITRASHI INFRA PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT IN ITA NO. 838/KOL/2019, DT. 12/08/2020 HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF REPORTED IN [2001] 250 ITR 763 (DELHI) FOR THE PROPOSITION NOT ON HIS OWN DISCRETION OR WISDOM BUT , DIRECTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THEN, SUCH ORDER CANNOT BE HELD AS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE, IT WOULD IN FACT AMOUNT ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . WERE RECORDED ON OATH. HE TOOK HIS BENCH THROUGH THE COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED ON OATH, WHICH ARE AT PAGE AS WELL AS THE DOCUMENTS FILED AND ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED ALL THE EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM AND AFTER DETAILED XAMINATION AND INVESTIGATION EVIDENCES, HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND NOT MADE ANY HE REFERRED TO THE IMPUGNED SECOND ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT NOWHERE IN THIS ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE LD. PR. CIT STATED WERE NOT FOLLOWED. HE REFERRED TO PARA 7 OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 11/03/2019 [SECOND THAT CASH CREDITS NEED GROUND FOR INVOKING POWERS ON WHICH THE REVISION HAS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AS THE . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/263 OF THE ACT ON 13/05/2016 HE LD. PR. CIT ON 11/03/2019 IS SECTION (1) OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, HE IS NO DIRECTION BY THE CBDT WHICH HAD NOT BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE HE LD. PR. CIT IS WRONG IN INVOKING THE SAME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL ISSUES, THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE (P) LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 896/KOL/2019, DT. 18/03/2020 INTENT DEALERS PVT. LTD. V. ITO IN ITA NO. 2179/KOL/2019, DT. 20/03/2020 AMRITRASHI INFRA PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT IN ITA NO. 838/KOL/2019, DT. 12/08/2020 HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHEN , BY FOLLOWING THE THEN, SUCH ORDER CANNOT BE HELD AS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE, IT WOULD IN FACT AMOUNT TO REVIEWING THE PREDECESSORS ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HE PRAYED FOR RELIED. 5. THE LD. D/R, MR. TAJINDE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 13/05/2016, IS CRYPTIC WHICH RUNS INTO THREE PAGES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PR. CIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO EXAMINE THE NET WORTH OF SHAREHOLDERS IN ORDER TO SEE THE JUSTIFIABILITY OF SUCH HUGE INVESTMENT AND ADMITTED T HAT THE QUANTUM OF SHARE PREMIUM RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED. HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH PARA 4.5. OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT AND RELIED ON THE OBSERVATIONS MADE THEREIN AND ARGUED THAT EVIDENT THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 13/05/2016 SUFFERS FROM LACK OF ENQUIRY AND HENCE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 5.1. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS NOTICED THE PRACTICE OF CONVERSION OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY THROUGH THE ALLOTMENT SCRUTINY. HE REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS CASE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THESE CASE ORDER OF T HE LD. PR. CIT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 13/05/2016 U/S 143/263 OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE HAS TO UPHELD. HE PLEADED THAT THE IMPUGNED 5.2. IN R EPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AS IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, ARE DIFFERENT S UBMITTED THAT, THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES WERE NOT TRACEABLE AND HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE ISSUES TO THEM, IN THE CASE OF WHEREAS IN THIS CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE COMPANIES HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS ON OATH AND ALL DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER 4 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD TO REVIEWING THE PREDECESSORS ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HE THE LD. D/R, MR. TAJINDE R PAL SINGH, OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 13/05/2016, IS CRYPTIC WHICH RUNS INTO THREE PAGES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT CARRYING OUT INVESTIGATIONS AND VERIFICATION AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PR. CIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO EXAMINE THE NET WORTH OF SHAREHOLDERS IN ORDER TO SEE THE JUSTIFIABILITY OF SUCH HUGE HAT THE QUANTUM OF SHARE PREMIUM RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED. HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH PARA 4.5. OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT AND RELIED ON THE OBSERVATIONS MADE THEREIN AND ARGUED THAT PASSED U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 13/05/2016 SUFFERS FROM LACK OF ENQUIRY AND HENCE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. [2019] 103 TAXMANN.COM 48 (SC) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS NOTICED THE PRACTICE OF CONVERSION OF UNACCOUNTED ALLOTMENT OF SHARE CAPITAL AT PREMIUM AND THAT THIS REQUIRES CAREFU SCRUTINY. HE REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS CASE - LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD. PR. CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THESE CASE - LAW TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, THE HE LD. PR. CIT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 13/05/2016 U/S 143/263 OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE HAS TO UPHELD. HE PLEADED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT BE UPHELD. EPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AS IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UBMITTED THAT, THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES WERE NOT TRACEABLE AND HAVE NOT RESPONDED THEM, IN THE CASE OF NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS ON OATH AND ALL DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . TO REVIEWING THE PREDECESSORS ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HE R PAL SINGH, OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 13/05/2016, IS CRYPTIC WHICH RUNS INTO THREE PAGES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER WITHOUT CARRYING OUT INVESTIGATIONS AND VERIFICATION AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PR. CIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO EXAMINE THE NET WORTH OF SHAREHOLDERS IN ORDER TO SEE THE JUSTIFIABILITY OF SUCH HUGE HAT THE QUANTUM OF SHARE PREMIUM RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED. HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH PARA 4.5. OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT AND RELIED ON THE OBSERVATIONS MADE THEREIN AND ARGUED THAT , ON FACTS IT IS PASSED U/S 263/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 13/05/2016 SUFFERS FROM LACK OF ENQUIRY AND HENCE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS NOTICED THE PRACTICE OF CONVERSION OF UNACCOUNTED PREMIUM AND THAT THIS REQUIRES CAREFU L LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD. PR. CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT , APPLYING THE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, THE HE LD. PR. CIT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 13/05/2016 U/S 143/263 OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT BE UPHELD. EPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) , DOES NOT APPLY FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE . HE UBMITTED THAT, THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES WERE NOT TRACEABLE AND HAVE NOT RESPONDED NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS ON OATH AND ALL DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE FILED BY THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES DISTINGUISHED THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD. D/R 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: 7. IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, ON 11/03/2019, THE LD. PR. CIT, MADE CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS. SOME OF THESE ARE A) ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE NET WORTH OF SHAREHOLDERS IN OR SEE THE JUSTIFIABILITY OF SUCH HUGE INVESTMENT . B) QUANTUM OF SHARE PREMIUM RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY ANALYSING THE NET WORTH OF THE INVESTMENTS FROM THEIR BALANCE SHEETS. C) ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO EXAMINE THE REASON F PREMIUM. D) ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT MAKING DETAILED INVESTIGATIONS, VERIFICATION IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND ALSO THE TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO THE SHARE CAPITAL. E) ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE DIRECTORS ON OATH REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF CONTROLLING INTEREST. F) ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE BANK STATEMENTS TO TRACE OUT THE MONE Y TRAIL TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOURCE OF FUNDS INVESTED BY THE SHAREHOLDERS. G) THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 13/05/2016 SUFFERS FROM LACK OF ENQUIRY. HE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE MADE KALEIDOSCOPIC INVESTIGATION BY EXTENDING HIS SCOPE OF ENQUIRY OF TRANSACTIONS. BUT THE SAME WAS NOT DONE. H) THE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REMAINED HALF COOKED. I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONDUCTED ENQUIRY FOR LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE ADJUDICATION. J) DETAILS, DOCUMENTS, AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE NOT EXAMINED JUDICIOUSLY. 5 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD WERE FILED BY THE SHARE HOLDING COMPANIES , AS WELL AS THE AS SESSEE COMPANY. DISTINGUISHED THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD. D/R WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: - IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, ON 11/03/2019, THE LD. PR. CIT, MADE CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS. SOME OF THESE ARE LISTED POINT WISE. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE NET WORTH OF SHAREHOLDERS IN OR SEE THE JUSTIFIABILITY OF SUCH HUGE INVESTMENT . QUANTUM OF SHARE PREMIUM RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY ANALYSING THE NET WORTH OF THE INVESTMENTS FROM THEIR BALANCE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO EXAMINE THE REASON F OR CHARGING SUCH HUGE SHARE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT MAKING DETAILED INVESTIGATIONS, VERIFICATION S/ INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY REGARDING THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO THE SHARE CAPITAL. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE DIRECTORS ON OATH REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF CONTROLLING INTEREST. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE BANK STATEMENTS TO TRACE OUT THE Y TRAIL TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOURCE OF FUNDS INVESTED BY THE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 13/05/2016 SUFFERS FROM LACK OF ENQUIRY. HE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE MADE KALEIDOSCOPIC INVESTIGATION BY EXTENDING HIS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. BUT THE SAME WAS NOT DONE. THE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REMAINED HALF COOKED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ENQUIRY FOR LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE ADJUDICATION. DETAILS, DOCUMENTS, AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE NOT EXAMINED ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . SESSEE COMPANY. HE ALSO WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, ON 11/03/2019, THE LD. PR. CIT, MADE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE NET WORTH OF SHAREHOLDERS IN OR DER TO QUANTUM OF SHARE PREMIUM RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY ANALYSING THE NET WORTH OF THE INVESTMENTS FROM THEIR BALANCE OR CHARGING SUCH HUGE SHARE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT S/ INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE DIRECTORS ON OATH REGARDING THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE BANK STATEMENTS TO TRACE OUT THE Y TRAIL TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOURCE OF FUNDS INVESTED BY THE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 13/05/2016 SUFFERS FROM LACK OF ENQUIRY. HE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE MADE KALEIDOSCOPIC INVESTIGATION BY EXTENDING HIS THE SHAREHOLDERS TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE THE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REMAINED HALF COOKED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DETAILS, DOCUMENTS, AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE NOT EXAMINED 7.1. THEREAFTER, HE REFERRED TO A NUMBER OF CASE HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 6 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD THEREAFTER, HE REFERRED TO A NUMBER OF CASE - LAW AND THEREAFTER AT PARA 5 TO 5.3. ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . LAW AND THEREAFTER AT PARA 5 TO 5.3. 7.2. A PERUSAL OF PARA 5.3., DEMONSTRATES THAT THE LD. PR. CIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ANY ORDER PASSED SUBSEQUENT TO AN ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, MUST BE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. THIS IS AN ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION. ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SET ASIDE BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, FOR ASSESSMENT, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED CONSEQUENT TO SUCH 263 ORDER HAS TO HAVE AN ADDITION. I DIRECTED AN ADDITION AFTER EXAMINING THE RECORDS. THE ENTIRE FINDINGS OF THE LD. PR. CIT AS ANALYZED ABOVE DEMONSTRATES THAT HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY/INVESTIGATION. IN FACT, THE ISSUING SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE HOLDER COMPANIES. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE APPEARED BEFOR ALL THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THESE OF THE PAPER BOOK. 8. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF THE 263 PROCEEDINGS, THE THEN LD. PR. CIT IN THE ORDER DT. 22/03/ 2016, GAVE THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS: A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS INCLUDING THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES. B) THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLICATION MONEY THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WASTING TIME IN COMPLIANCE OF THESE DIRECTIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPUGNED O STATES AS FOLLOWS:- 7 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD A PERUSAL OF PARA 5.3., DEMONSTRATES THAT THE LD. PR. CIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ANY ORDER PASSED SUBSEQUENT TO AN ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, MUST BE IN FAVOUR OF THE THIS IS AN ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION. THIS OBSERVATION IS NOT LEGAL. ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SET ASIDE BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, FOR ASSESSMENT, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED CONSEQUENT TO SUCH 263 ORDER HAS TO HAVE AN ADDITION. I F SUCH IS THE CASE, THE LD. PR. CIT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED AN ADDITION AFTER EXAMINING THE RECORDS. THE ENTIRE FINDINGS OF THE LD. PR. CIT AS ANALYZED ABOVE DEMONSTRATES THAT HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY/INVESTIGATION. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD HELD INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES BY ISSUING SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE HOLDER COMPANIES. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE APPEARED BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEY WERE EXAMINED ON OATH. ALL THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THESE PERSONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF THE 263 PROCEEDINGS, THE THEN LD. PR. CIT IN THE ORDER DT. 2016, GAVE THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS: - THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS INCLUDING THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE INVESTOR COMPANIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXA MINE THE SOURCE OF MONEY , IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF INVEST THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE TO BE INITIATED IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT IN COMPLIANCE OF THESE DIRECTIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPUGNED O ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . A PERUSAL OF PARA 5.3., DEMONSTRATES THAT THE LD. PR. CIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ANY ORDER PASSED SUBSEQUENT TO AN ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, MUST BE IN FAVOUR OF THE THIS OBSERVATION IS NOT LEGAL. WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SET ASIDE BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED CONSEQUENT TO SUCH 263 CASE, THE LD. PR. CIT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE THE ENTIRE FINDINGS OF THE LD. PR. CIT AS ANALYZED ABOVE DEMONSTRATES THAT HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ASSESSING OFFICER HAD HELD INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES BY ISSUING SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE HOLDER COMPANIES. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SHARE APPLICANT E THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEY WERE EXAMINED ON OATH. PERSONS ARE FILED AS PART IN THE FIRST ROUND OF THE 263 PROCEEDINGS, THE THEN LD. PR. CIT IN THE ORDER DT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF COMPANY, AS WELL AS MINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE , IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF INVEST ORS AND DIRECTED INITIATED IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT IN COMPLIANCE OF THESE DIRECTIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPUGNED O RDER AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOLLOWING ENQUIRES WERE CONDUCTED A) THE AMOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL INCLUDING PREMIUM WAS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS COMPANIES. B) SUMMONS U/S 1.31 WERE ISSUED ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ON OATH. C) DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ALSO DIRECTED IN THE SUMMON ISSUED TO PRODUCE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES TO RECORD THEIR STATEMENTS. D) DIRECTORS OF THE THIRTEEN SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES FROM WHOM SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS RECEIVED ALONG WITH SHARE PREMIUM APPEARED AND RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS UNDER OATH. E) DETAILS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN RELATION TO THE SHARE APPLIC COMPANIES WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE RESPECTIVE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES. THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE DULY CROSS CHECKED WITH THE BANK STATEMENT AND VERIFIED. F) DETAILS OF THE FIXED ASSET WITH SUPPORTING WERE CHECKED WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND TRADE PAYABLE ARE MAINLY RELATED TO THE FIXED ASSETS ONLY. THE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCES COLLECTED THROUGH THE ABOVE ENQUIRIES AS WELL AS THE STATEMENTS RECORDED ON OATH OF THE DIRECTOR AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES WERE EXAMINED CAREFULLY AND PLACED ON RECORD. 8.1. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CARRIED OUT THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO HIM U/S 263 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSMENT. JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DRAWN PER THE LD. PR. CIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DRAWN, IT DOES NOT MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ERRONEOUS TO THE EXTENT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 9. WE FIND THAT THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBU IDENTICAL FACTS, IN THE CASE OF HAD PASSED A SECOND ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, HELD AS FOLLOWS: 46. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORE 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 WHETHER HIS RE- ASSESSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER 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 23.08.20 ASSESSMENT OF THE AO DATED 07.12.2016, THE FOLLOWING FACTS 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 PRO ASSESSEE COMPANY PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE FIRST AO IN THE ORIGINAL 8 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOLLOWING ENQUIRES WERE CONDUCTED - A) THE AMOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL INCLUDING PREMIUM WAS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS B) SUMMONS U/S 1.31 WERE ISSUED TO THE DIRECTOR, MR. SANJAY KR. TODI OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ON OATH. C) DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ALSO DIRECTED IN THE SUMMON ISSUED TO PRODUCE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES TO RECORD THEIR D) DIRECTORS OF THE THIRTEEN SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES FROM WHOM SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS RECEIVED ALONG WITH SHARE PREMIUM APPEARED AND RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS UNDER OATH. E) DETAILS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN RELATION TO THE SHARE APPLIC COMPANIES WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE RESPECTIVE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES. THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE DULY CROSS CHECKED WITH THE BANK STATEMENT AND VERIFIED. F) DETAILS OF THE FIXED ASSET WITH SUPPORTING WERE CHECKED WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND TRADE PAYABLE ARE MAINLY RELATED TO THE FIXED ASSETS ONLY. THE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCES COLLECTED THROUGH THE ABOVE ENQUIRIES AS WELL AS THE STATEMENTS RECORDED ON OATH OF THE DIRECTOR AND THE DIRECTORS OF APPLICANT COMPANIES WERE EXAMINED CAREFULLY AND PLACED ON A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CARRIED OUT THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO HIM U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. PR. CIT AND THEN ONLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DRAWN CONCLUSIONS, WHICH AS PER THE LD. PR. CIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DRAWN, IT DOES NOT MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ERRONEOUS TO THE EXTENT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WE FIND THAT THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBU NAL, HAS UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND IDENTICAL FACTS, IN THE CASE OF AMRITRASHI INFRA PRIVATE LTD. (SUPRA) WHERE THE LD. PR. CIT HAD PASSED A SECOND ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, HELD AS FOLLOWS: - 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 ASSESSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER 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 23.08.20 16 AND THE REASSESSMENT /SECOND ASSESSMENT OF THE AO DATED 07.12.2016, THE FOLLOWING FACTS 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 PRO ASSESSEE COMPANY PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE FIRST AO IN THE ORIGINAL ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA, THE A) THE AMOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL INCLUDING PREMIUM WAS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS TO THE DIRECTOR, MR. SANJAY KR. TODI OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ON OATH. C) DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ALSO DIRECTED IN THE SUMMON ISSUED TO PRODUCE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES TO RECORD THEIR D) DIRECTORS OF THE THIRTEEN SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES FROM WHOM SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS RECEIVED ALONG WITH SHARE PREMIUM APPEARED AND E) DETAILS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN RELATION TO THE SHARE APPLIC ANT COMPANIES WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE RESPECTIVE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES. THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE DULY CROSS F) DETAILS OF THE FIXED ASSET WITH SUPPORTING WERE CHECKED WITH THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND TRADE PAYABLE ARE MAINLY RELATED TO THE FIXED ASSETS ONLY. THE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCES COLLECTED THROUGH THE ABOVE ENQUIRIES AS WELL AS THE STATEMENTS RECORDED ON OATH OF THE DIRECTOR AND THE DIRECTORS OF APPLICANT COMPANIES WERE EXAMINED CAREFULLY AND PLACED ON A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CARRIED OUT THE BY THE LD. PR. CIT AND THEN ONLY COMPLETED CONCLUSIONS, WHICH AS PER THE LD. PR. CIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DRAWN, IT DOES NOT MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ERRONEOUS NAL, HAS UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND WHERE THE LD. PR. CIT 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 THE AO FAILED TO ENQUIRE ON THIS ISSUE AND ASSESSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW OR IT CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW IN LAW. WE ON A CONJOINT READING OF THE FIRST 16 AND THE REASSESSMENT /SECOND ASSESSMENT OF THE AO DATED 07.12.2016, THE FOLLOWING FACTS 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 PRO CEEDING, 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 (III) COPY OF PAN CARD OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY; (IV) DETAILS AND COPY OF SHARE APPLICANTS; (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 THAT 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 CA RRIED OUT BY THE AO. THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AT PARA (4) OF HIS FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER 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. ITS ONUS BY FURNISHING/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO FOUND FAULT WITH THE AOS ORDER FOR NON SHAREHOLDERS. THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO S ORDER IN NOT DISCUSSING 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 EXAMI CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE OR TO BRING ON RECORD ANYTHING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THUS ACCORDING TO HIM, THE AO WITH A PRE CONCLUSION THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U 68 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT, THE FIRST ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 26 NATURAL JUSTICE AND, THEREFORE, HE FOUND IT FIT TO ORDER DENOVO ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC DIRECTION IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE. 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 E XAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE INVESTOR. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION, ENTITY OF INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITING 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 T TO CARRY OUT THE FOLLOWINGS ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DE SECOND AO IS FREE TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AFRESH, HOWEVER, HE HAS TO DO THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC AC TIONS AS DIRECTED IN RESPECT OF SHARE SHARES IN ASSESSEE- COMPANY. THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF LD. PR CIT TO AO 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; 9 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ASSESSMENT TO SATISFY THE AO IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINEOUS OF 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 THAT 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 RRIED OUT BY THE AO. THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AT PARA (4) OF HIS FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER 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 DISCHARGED 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 SHAREHOLDERS. THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO S ORDER IN NOT DISCUSSING 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 EXAMI CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE OR TO BRING ON RECORD ANYTHING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE 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 68 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT, THE FIRST ORIGINAL 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 SPECIFIC DIRECTION IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE. 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 XAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE INVESTOR. 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 MENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITING FOR TIME BAR LIMIT. WITH THE AFORESAID SPECIFIC DIRECTION, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT HAS SET ASIDE THE FIRST ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26 -03-2015. SO WE NOTE THAT T HE SECOND AO WAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT TO CARRY OUT THE FOLLOWINGS 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 TIONS AS DIRECTED IN RESPECT OF SHARE - APPLICANTS WHO APPLIED FOR COMPANY. THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF LD. PR CIT TO AO ARE AS UNDER: TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF AO TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS; IV)THE AO TO EXAMINE THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS; ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . ASSESSMENT TO SATISFY THE AO IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINEOUS OF RECORDS RELATING TO INVESTORS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY, GENUINENESS WE NOTE THAT THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT IN HIS FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER, FOUND THAT 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 RRIED OUT BY THE AO. THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AT PARA (4) OF HIS FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER 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 THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED .FURTHER, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT MAINLY 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 IN NOT DISCUSSING 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 EXAMI NE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE OR TO BRING ON RECORD ANYTHING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THUS 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. CIT, THE FIRST ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT 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 ASSESSEE. ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 26.03.2015 IS SET ASIDE DE NOVO WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE AO TO CARRY OUT XAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE INVESTOR. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SHARE APPLICATION, ENTITY . (EMPHASIS GIVEN BY US). HE ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE MENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE INITIATED AT THE EARLIEST AND TO BE COMPLETED WITHOUT WAITING FOR TIME BAR LIMIT. WITH THE AFORESAID SPECIFIC DIRECTION, THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT HE SECOND AO WAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT NOVO ASSESSMENT WHICH MEANS THE SECOND AO IS FREE TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AFRESH, HOWEVER, HE HAS TO DO THE APPLICANTS WHO APPLIED FOR COMPANY. THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF LD. PR CIT TO AO ARE AS UNDER: TO CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF CARRY OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF IV)THE AO TO EXAMINE THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR AND ITS GENUINENESS; V) THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AT THE BARRING DATE. 50. IN THE SECOND ROUND BEFORE THE AO FOR DE NOVO RE PER THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT (SUPRA), CONDUCTED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. AS PER THE SPECIFIC SUMMONED 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) 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 TRA NSACTION, WHICH FACT THE AO HAS ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE REASSESSMENT 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,R OC DETAILS, AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, DETAILS AND COPY 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 ASSES SEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FURNISHING/DOCUMENTS BEFORE 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 DETAILS, (II) CIN DETAIL, (III) AUDITED ANNUAL REPORT FOR FY 2011 ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR AY 2012 AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE I ASSESSEES DIRECTOR; AND THE AO VERIFIED THE VERACITY OF THE SAME FROM ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND MOREOVER IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT IN THIS COMPUTER/DIGITAL ER EASILY VERIFIED 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 AND 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 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. 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. 10 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AT THE EARLIEST WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE TIME 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 AO FIRSTLY SUMMONED 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 APPLICANTS, (V) DETAILS OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY, (VI) DETAILS OF INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL, (VII) FORM 2, (VIII) FORM 5, (IX) BANK STATEMENTS EVIDENCING PAYMENT NSACTION, WHICH FACT THE AO HAS ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE REASSESSMENT 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 OC DETAILS, AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, DETAILS AND COPY 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 SEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FURNISHING/DOCUMENTS BEFORE 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 SHAREHOLDERS HAVE FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE (I) PAN DETAILS, (II) CIN DETAIL, (III) AUDITED ANNUAL REPORT FOR FY 2011 - 12 (AY 2012 ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR AY 2012 - 13 WHICH THE AO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE VERIFIED THE SAME AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE I DENTITY OF THE INVESTORS WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEES DIRECTOR; AND THE AO VERIFIED THE VERACITY OF THE SAME FROM ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND MOREOVER IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT IN THIS COMPUTER/DIGITAL ER A, THE AO ON A CLICK OF THE MOUSE, COULD HAVE EASILY VERIFIED 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 AND 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 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 U52190WB2011PTC157073 AAPCS2068E M/S. SHIVARSHI 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 SUBHSREEIMPEX PVT. LTD. U51909WB2011PTC171513 AARCS1845D M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS U51109WB2005PTC102343 AAECM224E U51109WB2005PTC102121 AAICS8900L ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . EARLIEST WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE TIME ASSESSMENT, THE SECOND AO AS PER THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT (SUPRA), CONDUCTED THE REASSESSMENT DIRECTION OF LD. FIRST PR. CIT, THE SECOND AO FIRSTLY SUMMONED 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 AUDITED ACCOUNTS, (III) DETAILS OF DIRECTORS, (IV) THE APPLICANTS, (V) DETAILS OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY, (VI) DETAILS OF INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL, (VII) FORM 2, (VIII) FORM 5, (IX) BANK STATEMENTS EVIDENCING PAYMENT NSACTION, WHICH FACT THE AO HAS ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE REASSESSMENT 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 OC DETAILS, AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, DETAILS AND COPY 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 SEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FURNISHING/DOCUMENTS BEFORE 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 SHAREHOLDERS HAVE FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE (I) PAN DETAILS, (II) CIN 12 (AY 2012 -13), (IV) ITR 13 WHICH THE AO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE VERIFIED THE SAME DENTITY OF THE INVESTORS WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEES DIRECTOR; AND THE AO VERIFIED THE VERACITY OF THE SAME FROM ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND MOREOVER IT IS COMMON A, THE AO ON A CLICK OF THE MOUSE, COULD HAVE EASILY VERIFIED 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 DETAILS FROM THE AO OF THE RESPECTIVE SHARE APPLICANTS AND 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 ITR FILED FOR AY 2012-13 AACCK0101B YES AABCK151611 YES AACCA1184G YES AAPCS2068E YES AAQCS7848M YES AARCS0094C YES AABCF9036D YES AARCS1553N YES AAECK6810D YES AACCL2111J YES AARCS1845D YES AAECM224E YES AAICS8900L YES ALSO EXAMINED BY THE AO ALONG WI THEIR IDENTITY. 51. THUS, WE NOTE THAT THE AO AFTER VERIFICATION AS AFORESAID, HAS NOT DRAWN ANY ADVERSE OPINION OR DOUBTED THE POSSIBLE VIEW IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO AND WE ALSO BY APPLYING 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 REVEAL 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 THE 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 THE CLEAR AS SERTION OF THE SECOND AO IN HIS ORDER THAT PURSUANT TO HIS 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 APPLICA NTS DOES NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE ORDER SHEET MAINTAINED 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-ASSE SSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AO AND NOT THE ORDER 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 S ECOND AO ISSUED SEC. 133(6) NOTICE AND COLLECTED DOCUMENTS 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 OF THE SHARE 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 THEI R 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 ASSESSEES. THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED THEIR SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND CANNO TERMED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW OR FACTS. 52. COMING TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE SHAREHOLDERS (PB LD. PR. CIT AND WE NOTE THAT THEIR SOURCE O SHEET AS ON 31.03.2012 AS WELL AS THE SUM INVESTED BY THEM IN THE ASSESSEE IS DISCERNIBLE AS UNDER: 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 11 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ALSO EXAMINED BY THE AO ALONG WI TH AUDITED ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THESE DETAILS SHOW 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 THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO AND WE ALSO BY APPLYING 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 ORDER SHEET MAINTAINED BY THE SECOND AO DOES NOT REVEAL 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 OF THE ACT TO ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS DIRECTED BY THE 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 SERTION OF THE SECOND AO IN HIS ORDER THAT PURSUANT TO HIS 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 NTS DOES NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE ORDER SHEET MAINTAINED 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 SSMENT/SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AO AND NOT THE ORDER - SHEET 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 ECOND AO ISSUED SEC. 133(6) NOTICE AND COLLECTED DOCUMENTS 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 TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE 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 R 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 HOLDERS ARE REGULAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEES. 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 CANNO TERMED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW OR FACTS. 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 O F 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 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 ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . TH AUDITED ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THESE DETAILS SHOW 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 THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO AND WE ALSO BY APPLYING 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 ORDER SHEET MAINTAINED BY THE SECOND AO DOES NOT REVEAL 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 OF THE ACT TO ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT AND WE NOTE FROM THE PERUSAL OF SOME LETTERS WRITTEN BY THE SHARE APPLICANTS ALIA PAGE 32 OF PB -I). SO, SERTION OF THE SECOND AO IN HIS ORDER THAT PURSUANT TO HIS 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 NTS DOES NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE ORDER SHEET MAINTAINED 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 SHEET 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 ECOND AO ISSUED SEC. 133(6) NOTICE AND COLLECTED DOCUMENTS 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 TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND THAT ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FILING THE SAME. SO WE FIND THAT DURING HOLDERS U/S. 133(6) AND AFTER PERUSING R 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 HOLDERS ARE REGULAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEES. THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED AND THE AOS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND CANNO T BE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN 2) WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO AND THE F 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 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 RS.4,66,00,000/ - 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 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- 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 THE ONUS IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION. BASED ON TH 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 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 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 A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, AND WHICH HAS PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. AACCK0101B 31.03.2012 (IN TOTAL) RS.66,77,47,921/ COMPANY INCLUDING THE SHARE PREMIUM COMES TO RS.1,30,00 PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF RS.1,05,00,000/ 12 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ( 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 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 FROM IBED TO SHARES OF ASSESSEE (THOUGH NOT REQUIRED AS PER LAW IN FORCE FOR 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 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 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 THE ONUS IN RESPECT OF GENUINENESS 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 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, 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 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 A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, AND WHICH HAS PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. AACCK0101B AND CIN U51109WB1994PTC061965 AND ITS NET 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 ASSESSEE COMPANY INCLUDING THE SHARE PREMIUM COMES TO RS.1,30,00 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/ ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . 2 ) 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 IBED TO SHARES OF ASSESSEE (THOUGH NOT REQUIRED AS PER LAW IN FORCE FOR 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 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 EFORE THE AO, WHICH REVEALED THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM HAVE BEEN SUBSCRIBED BY THEM THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL (NEFT OR CHEQUE) WHICH GOES GENUINENESS OF THE 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 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 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 NO. AND ITS NET -WORTH AS ON SHARE CAPITAL & RESERVE IS TO THE TUNE OF (PB PAGE 22) AND THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY INCLUDING THE SHARE PREMIUM COMES TO RS.1,30,00 ,000/-. THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF 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 STATEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT P. B PAGE 3 ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APP LICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME 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 SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (II) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN U70101WB1994PTC062137 31.3.2012RS.66,52,71,914/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE 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/ LA KH EACH. THERE 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 APPLICA 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 I INCOME- TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT I THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE ACT. (III) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK OF SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN U67120WB1995PTCO74397 31.3.2012 RS.62,47,11,003 ASSESSEE COMPAN 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/ ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INC 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 APPL ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME 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 AP 13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD 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 3 - 37AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE LICANTS BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME - 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. 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 THE ACT. WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK -2 PAGES 38 TO 77 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/- 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/ - ; AND ON 7.3.2012 AND BY CHEQUE ON 12.3.2012 RS. 25 KH EACH. THERE 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 PAGE 39 TO 77. THIS SHARE APPLICA NT 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 I DENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT BY ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS 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 I THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE (III) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK -2 PAGES 78 TO 111 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 COMPAN Y 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 RESOLUT ION 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 79 TO 111 IN THE PB APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INC OME 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. THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPL 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. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE AP PLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . AS ON 06.03.2012. THE BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT OF THE COMPANY IS FORM, ITR ACKNOWLEDGMENT, BANK STATEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUNDS AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 37AND 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 THE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING PPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE 38 TO 77 , THE DETAILS OF IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED 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 ; AND ON 7.3.2012 AND BY CHEQUE ON 12.3.2012 RS. 25 KH EACH. THERE 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 NT 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 DENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT 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 I S NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE 78 TO 111 , THE DETAILS IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED 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; AND BY CHEQUE ON RS. ION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL PAGE 79 TO 111 IN THE PB -II. THIS SHARE OME 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. THUS WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPL ICANTS BY 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. PLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE 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. 4 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 ACKNOWLEDG EMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF S 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 THAT THE SHARE 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 SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (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/ THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4, APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03.2012 RS.4,66,00,000/ INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEM FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THIS COMPANY HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOU 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 FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONU 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 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 14 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD 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 PRIVATE 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. 4 5,00,000/- 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 EMENT, EXPLANATION 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 DETAILS OF S OURCE 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 BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOT SECTION 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. 4, 66,00,000/- 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 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 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 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) ) 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 LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AARCS0094C AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER 112 TO 137 , THE IT IS A PRIVATE 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 FORM BANK STATEMENT, ITR EMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL PAGE 113 TO 137 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK OURCE 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 TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS 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 HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOT ICE UNDER 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 COMPANY PAGE 153) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN 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 ENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS 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 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 INVESTMENT COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) 2, 160 TO 184 THE 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 31.3.2012 RS.14,29,56,146/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,55,00,000/ HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03.2012 RS.6,55,00,000/ 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 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 ADDUCING PAN AS WELL AS INCOME 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 SEC (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/ HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 30.03.201 RS.4,49,00,000/ 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 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 INCOME- TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTH TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (VIII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PA DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT 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 ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,31,00,000/ HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.3.2012 RS. 2,31,00,000/ ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB 15 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD 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 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 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 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 SEC 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 30.03.201 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 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 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 - COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (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. 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/ - AND THIS 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 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 ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . S COMPANY AS ON PAGE 178) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 29.03.2012 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 PAGE 161 TO 184 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE 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 IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BY 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 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 - TION 133(6) OF THE ACT. 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 30.03.201 2 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 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 TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE INESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE 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 AS ON 220) AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.3.2012 RS. 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 226 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETU 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 WELL AS INCOME APPLICANT HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO INVEST IN THE ASSESSEE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PR 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. (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 AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.56,18,94,080/ COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,54,00,000/ MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 RS. 12,54,00,000/ ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB APPLICANT REGULARLY 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 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 HAPPENED THROUGH B 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 UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. (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/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,80,00,000/ HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BA RS.3,80,00,000/ ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB 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 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 16 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD 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 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 INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE 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 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 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 - COMPANY 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. 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 AVAILABLE IN THE PB -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 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 ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . 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 ADDUCING PAN AS TAX RETURNS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE SHARE COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS OVE 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 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 COMPANY AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 RS. ARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN ASSESSEES COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL PAGE 228 TO 261 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE 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 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 COMPANY AND THE TRANSACTION HAS 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 GETTING THE NOTICE 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 THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT NKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 A SUM OF 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 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 AL 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 OF TH E 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. (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/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,76,00,000/ HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 A SUM OF RS.2,76,00,0000/ 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 REGULARLY FILED INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FIL 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 TRANSACTION HAS HAPP 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. (XII) WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANT LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAECM22 U51109WB2005PTC102343 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2012 RS.1,54,58,399/ ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 LAKHS AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION 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 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 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 OF SHARE APPLICANT WHICH HAS A PAN AAICS8900L AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51109WB2005PTC 102121 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS 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 APPLICATION, BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINANCIAL STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE PB INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) AND IT HAS FILED ITS BANK STATEMENT. THE FINANCIAL 17 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD E 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. (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. 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 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- 303 IN 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 - 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 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. 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- 2)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.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 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 TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 28.02.2012 A SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE. THERE IS SH 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 ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . E TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY AFTER 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 THE AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 31.03.2012 A SUM OF THROUGH NEFT. THERE IS BOARD RESOLUTION FOR INVESTMENT IN S COMPANY AND SHARE APPLICATION FORM , BANK STATEMENT, ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF FUND AS WELL AS FINANCIAL 303 IN THE PB. THIS SHARE APPLICANT 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 COMPANY AND THE 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 2, PAGES 304 TO 326 THE M/S. MAHARAJA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. IT IS A PRIVATE 4E AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51109WB2005PTC102343 AND THE NET WORTH OF THIS COMPANY AS ON 2)AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 LAKHS AND THIS SHARE APPLICANT HAS 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 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 DETAILS IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHICH HAS A PAN AAICS8900L AND ITS CIN NUMBER IS U51109WB2005PTC 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 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 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 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 ABOVE, IT IS NOTED EXCEPT THE LAST TWO INVESTORS THE OTHER ELEVEN (11) SHARE APPLICANTS OUT OF THIRTEEN (13) SHARE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ASSESSEE AO UNDER SECTION 13 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, F ROM 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 THA T 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 DIRECTION 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 GIVI NG 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 GENUIN ENESS 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 PRODUCED 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 REASSESSMENT ORDE R 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 55. 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 ENQU IRY MADE BY THE SECOND AO, HOWEVER, 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. AVAILABLE IS THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER BEFORE THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT AND EASILY EXAMINED THE VERACITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS DATA BASE BY 18 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD 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, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THUS FROM THE DIS ABOVE, IT IS NOTED EXCEPT THE 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. ROM 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 T 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 COMPLIANCE/FAILURE ON THE PART OF SECOND AO IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION 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 NG 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 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 ENESS 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 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 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 R 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 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 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 IRY MADE BY THE SECOND AO, HOWEVER, 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 ASSESSMENT FOLDER BEFORE THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT AND EASILY EXAMINED THE VERACITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS DATA BASE BY ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . 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, 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 HOLDERS HAD FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF COMPANY AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE FROM SECOND 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 ROM 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 T 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 COMPLIANCE/FAILURE ON THE PART OF SECOND AO IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION 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 NG 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 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 ENESS 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 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 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 R 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 TO ACCEPT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS WAS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT 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 IRY MADE BY THE SECOND AO, HOWEVER, HE CONCLUDES THAT THERE WAS LACK OF ENQUIRY. SO WHEN THERE WAS AN ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY AO THEN THE AO HAS DISCHARGED AND WE NOTE THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE ARE ASSESSMENT FOLDER BEFORE THE SECOND 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 ADVERSE FACT, IF ANY, WHICH THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SO THE INFERENCE THA 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 SECOND LD. PR. CIT. AND STILL IF THE LD. PR. CIT IS NOT SATISFIED AND WANTED TO INTERFERE INVOKING 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 WRONG ASSUMPTION OF FACT/LAW OR THAT THE AO MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN FACTUAL INVESTIGATION OR APPLIED T 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 AN ENQUIRY OR AT LEAST CONDUCTED A PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY AND WAS ABLE TO BRING SOME EVIDENCE/MATERIA 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 UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT THE CASE. SINCE THE AOS VIEW ON THE FACTS COLLECTED AND DISCUSSED IS DEFINITELY A 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 THE AOS REASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IN ANY CASE CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW SINCE IT 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 DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT ON THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT MATTER I.E. SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM CO SECOND PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ENQUIRY IS INCORRECT AND IS FLOWING FROM SUSPICION ONLY. AND AS DISCUSSED, THE ALLEGATION/FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT THAT THE S 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 L 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 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 INVESTI 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 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 ADDI TIONAL 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 EFFECT THOSE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WOULD HAVE MADE ON THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER/REASSESSMENT ORDER OF FRAMING THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER DUE TO THE FAILURE OF SECOND AOS OMISSION TO COLLECT THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND PR. CIT HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY SUCH EXERCIS 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 T VAGUE ALLEGATION OF SECOND PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT COLLECTED THE FULL FACTS NECESSARY TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM.SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND 19 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD 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 FACT, IF ANY, WHICH THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SO THE INFERENCE THA BE DRAWN IS THAT THE VERACITY OF THE FACTUAL CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE 2) COULD NOT BE FACTUALLY CONTROVERTED BY THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT. AND STILL IF THE LD. PR. CIT IS NOT SATISFIED AND WANTED TO INTERFERE INVOKING 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 WRONG ASSUMPTION OF FACT/LAW OR THAT THE AO MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN FACTUAL INVESTIGATION OR APPLIED T 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 AN ENQUIRY OR AT LEAST CONDUCTED A PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY AND WAS ABLE TO BRING SOME EVIDENCE/MATERIA 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 UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT THE CASE. SINCE THE AOS VIEW ON THE FACTS COLLECTED AND DISCUSSED IS DEFINITELY A 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 THE AOS REASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IN ANY CASE CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW SINCE IT PLETHORA OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF THE SUBJECT. TO SUM UP, WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE SAID FACTS THAT THE SECOND AO HAS CONDUCTED ENQUIRY AS DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT ON THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT MATTER I.E. SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM CO LLECTED 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 SUSPICION ONLY. AND AS DISCUSSED, THE ALLEGATION/FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT THAT THE S ECOND 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 L AW IN FORCE IN THIS AY 2012- 13, 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 OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE ACTIONS/OMISSION OF AO IN CONDUCTING THE INVESTI GATION 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 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 TIONAL 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 EFFECT 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 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND PR. CIT HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY SUCH EXERCIS E 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 T O 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 DECIDE THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM.SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . 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 FACT, IF ANY, WHICH THE SECOND LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SO THE INFERENCE THA T CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE VERACITY OF THE FACTUAL CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE 2) COULD NOT BE FACTUALLY CONTROVERTED BY THE SECOND 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 WRONG ASSUMPTION OF FACT/LAW OR THAT THE AO MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN FACTUAL INVESTIGATION OR APPLIED T HE 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 AN ENQUIRY OR AT LEAST CONDUCTED A PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY AND WAS ABLE TO BRING SOME EVIDENCE/MATERIA L 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 UNFORTUNATELY 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 THE AOS REASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IN ANY CASE CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW SINCE IT IS IN LINE WITH TO SUM UP, WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE SAID FACTS THAT THE SECOND AO HAS CONDUCTED ENQUIRY AS DIRECTED BY THE FIRST LD. PR. CIT ON THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT MATTER I.E. SHARE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF SECOND PR. CIT THAT THE SECOND AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ENQUIRY IS INCORRECT AND IS FLOWING FROM SUSPICION ONLY. AND AS DISCUSSED, THE ALLEGATION/FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE ECOND 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 13, 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 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 GATION 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 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 TIONAL 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 EFFECT THOSE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WOULD HAVE MADE ON THE SECOND ASSESSMENT 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 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND PR. CIT HAS NOT E 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 O 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 DECIDE THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM.SO WE NOTE THAT THE SECOND AO, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AS WELL AS AN ADJUDICATOR. LOOKING FROM ANOTHER ANGLE OF DOCTRINE OF MERGER CANVASSED BEFORE US, WE NOTE FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT THE 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 CANNOT DO SINCE THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER/RE 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 BY THE FIRST LD. PR.CIT, WHICH DIRECTION SINCE HAVING BEEN COMPLIED BY THE AO, BRINGS INTO OPERATION T HE DOCTRINE OF MERGER THE SUBJECT MATTER I.E. SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY. RESULTANTLY THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT, AGAIN CANNOT RAKE THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER WITHOUT THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT IN THE SECOND REVISIONAL ORDER SPELLS OUT WHE RE 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 VE RY 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 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 SATISFYI NG THE CONDITION PRECEDENT U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAS INVOKED THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND TIME), SO ALL HIS ACTIONS ARE AB INITIO VOID. 10. ON SIMILAR FACTS, WHEN THE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WAS EXERCISED FOR A SECOND TIME BY THE IN THE CASE M/S OMKAR INFRACON PRIVATE 13. FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT EVEN THOUGH THE RE ASIDE AGAIN BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF PR. CIT, WE THE LD. PR. CIT TO INVOKE HIS REVISIONARY JURISDICTION WERE (A) DETAILED INVESTIGATION /VERIFICATION IN THE NATURE OF INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY REGARDING IDENTIFY, CREDIT WORTHINESS, AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION T BUT NOT DONE AND MERELY ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THIS ALLEGATION OF LD. PR. CIT. WE NOTE THAT AO IN THIS CASE HAD ISSUED DURING THE FIRST AND SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT ACT, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL DETAILS AND THE AO EXAMINED THE SAME, AND THEREAFTER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND VERIFIED THE DETAILS, AND ISSUED SUMMON U/S 131 TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE CO AND WE NOTE THAT ALL OF THEM RESPONDED AND DULY APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED AND ONLY ONE SHAREHOLDER AN INDIVIDUAL WAS NEW AND ALL THE SHAREHOLDER'S COMPANIES WERE GROUP COMPANIES AND WAS FATHER OF A DIRECTOR. (B). WE NOTE THAT NEXT FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PR. CIT WAS THE AO FAILED TO CARRYOUT DETAILED INVESTIGATION AS TO HOW THEY DECIDED TO INVEST IN A COMPANY AT PREMIUM WHICH WAS NEVER A KNOW N COMPANY. ACCORDING TO US, THE LD PR. CIT DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACTS IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND DID NOT HAD TAKEN NOTICE OF THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THESE WERE THE PROMOTERS WHO STARTED THE COMPANY IN THE YEAR 2010 FOR THE BUSINESS OF MAKING ASH 20 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD 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 CANVASSED BEFORE US, WE NOTE FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT THE 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 SINCE THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER/RE - ASSESSMENT OF THE SECOND AO 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 THE FIRST LD. PR.CIT, WHICH DIRECTION SINCE HAVING BEEN COMPLIED BY THE AO, BRINGS HE DOCTRINE OF MERGER THE SUBJECT MATTER I.E. SHARE CAPITAL & PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY. RESULTANTLY THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT, AGAIN CANNOT RAKE THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER WITHOUT THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT IN THE SECOND REVISIONAL ORDER RE 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 RY 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 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. NG THE CONDITION PRECEDENT U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAS INVOKED THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND TIME), SO ALL HIS ACTIONS ARE AB INITIO VOID. ON SIMILAR FACTS, WHEN THE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WAS SECOND TIME BY THE LD. PR. CIT ON SIMILAR FACTS , THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL OMKAR INFRACON PRIVATE (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER:- 13. FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT EVEN THOUGH THE RE - ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 5.11.2016 WAS SET ASIDE AGAIN BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF PR. CIT, WE NOTE THAT ONE OF THE FAULTS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PR. CIT TO INVOKE HIS REVISIONARY JURISDICTION WERE (A) DETAILED INVESTIGATION /VERIFICATION IN THE NATURE OF INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY REGARDING IDENTIFY, CREDIT WORTHINESS, AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION T HAT WAS INTENDED TO BE CARRIED BUT NOT DONE AND MERELY ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THIS ALLEGATION OF LD. PR. CIT. WE NOTE THAT AO IN THIS CASE HAD ISSUED DURING THE FIRST AND SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL DETAILS AND THE AO EXAMINED THE SAME, AND THEREAFTER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND VERIFIED THE DETAILS, AND ISSUED SUMMON U/S 131 TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY AS WELL AS TO ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS. AND WE NOTE THAT ALL OF THEM RESPONDED AND DULY APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED AND ONLY ONE SHAREHOLDER AN INDIVIDUAL WAS NEW AND ALL THE SHAREHOLDER'S COMPANIES WERE GROUP COMPANIES AND THE NEW INDIVIDUAL SHARE SUBSCRIBER WAS FATHER OF A DIRECTOR. (B). WE NOTE THAT NEXT FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PR. CIT WAS THE AO FAILED TO CARRYOUT DETAILED INVESTIGATION AS TO HOW THEY DECIDED TO INVEST IN A COMPANY AT PREMIUM WHICH N COMPANY. ACCORDING TO US, THE LD PR. CIT DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACTS IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND DID NOT HAD TAKEN NOTICE OF THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THESE WERE THE PROMOTERS WHO STARTED THE COMPANY IN THE YEAR 2010 FOR THE BUSINESS OF MAKING ASH -FLY BRICKS AND THE ONLY NEW ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . JUDICIAL OFFICE HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUAL ROLE AS AN INVESTIGATOR AS WELL AS AN ADJUDICATOR. LOOKING FROM ANOTHER ANGLE OF DOCTRINE OF MERGER CANVASSED BEFORE US, WE NOTE FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT THE SECOND LD. PR. 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 ASSESSMENT OF THE SECOND AO 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 THE FIRST LD. PR.CIT, WHICH DIRECTION SINCE HAVING BEEN COMPLIED BY THE AO, BRINGS HE 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 THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER WITHOUT THE SECOND LD. PR.CIT IN THE SECOND REVISIONAL ORDER RE 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 RY 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 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. NG THE CONDITION PRECEDENT U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAS INVOKED THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND TIME), SO ALL HIS ACTIONS ARE AB INITIO VOID. ON SIMILAR FACTS, WHEN THE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WAS , THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 5.11.2016 WAS SET NOTE THAT ONE OF THE FAULTS POINTED OUT BY (A) DETAILED INVESTIGATION /VERIFICATION IN THE NATURE OF INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY REGARDING HAT WAS INTENDED TO BE CARRIED HOWEVER, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THIS ALLEGATION OF LD. PR. CIT. WE NOTE THAT AO IN THIS NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL DETAILS AND THE AO EXAMINED THE SAME, AND THEREAFTER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND VERIFIED THE DETAILS, AND ISSUED MPANY AS WELL AS TO ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS. AND WE NOTE THAT ALL OF THEM RESPONDED AND DULY APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED AND ONLY ONE SHAREHOLDER AN INDIVIDUAL WAS NEW AND ALL THE THE NEW INDIVIDUAL SHARE SUBSCRIBER (B). WE NOTE THAT NEXT FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PR. CIT WAS THE AO FAILED TO CARRYOUT DETAILED INVESTIGATION AS TO HOW THEY DECIDED TO INVEST IN A COMPANY AT PREMIUM WHICH ACCORDING TO US, THE LD PR. CIT DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACTS IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND DID NOT HAD TAKEN NOTICE OF THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THESE WERE THE PROMOTERS WHO STARTED BRICKS AND THE ONLY NEW SHAREHOLDER INDIVIDUAL WAS FATHER OF AN EXISTING DIRECTOR; AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR HAD STARTED EXPANSION ACTIVITIES OF THE BUSINESS OF MAKING/MANUFACTURING FLY ASH BRICKS. WE NOTE THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL INF AND MOREOVER THE INVESTOR COMPANIES WERE GROUP COMPANIES AND SHARES ALLOTTED THIS YEAR WAS TO EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS AND ONLY NEW SHAREHOLDERS WAS THE FATHER OF A DIRECTOR. AS STATED EARLIER, THE PROMOTER AND GROUP BUSINESS AND HAD MADE THE INVESTMENT AND PREMIUM WHICH WAS AGREED UPON MUTUALLY BY ALL THE EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXPANSION AND FUTURE RETURN EXPECTED OF IT. AFTER APPRECIATING THESE F RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS ON THE DATE OF REASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THE GENUINITY OF THE TRANSACTION, SO NOTHING TURNS AROUND IN RESPECT OF THIS FAULT RAISED BY THE LD. PR. CIT. (C) TH E NEXT FAULT FOUND BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE PREMIUM. FROM THE AFORESAID REASONS (SUPRA) (B), THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE TRANSACTION WHICH ON THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND IS A PROBABLE VIEW. (D) THE OTHER FAULT NO TED BY LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO COLLECT RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN ORDER TO REACH A LOGICAL CONCLUSION. WE DO NOT COUNTENANCE THIS FAULT POINTED OUT BY LD. PR. CIT FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IT IS FIRST OF ALL A VAGUE ALLEGATION WITHOUT SPELLING OU COLLECTED BY THE AO. WE NOTE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED DOCUMENTS BEFORE AO, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED BEFORE US, WHICH IS RUNNING TO THREE (3) VOLUMES. [ VOLUME I VOLUME II 231 PAGES, VOLUME III INDIVIDUAL SHARE HOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND AFTER RECORDING THEIR STATEMENTS, AND AFTER VERIFYING THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, HAS ACCEPTED THE SHARE CAPITAL/PREMIUM INFUSED INTO THE AS PERVERSE ORDER AND ACCORDING TO US, THE AO FROM THE ACTIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AND ADJUDICATOR AND TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW WHICH CANNOT BE CALLED AN UN- SUSTAINABLE (E) THE OTHER FAULT TAKEN NOTE BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE ALL BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD. TO THIS ALLEGATION OF LD. PR. CIT, WE ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND THE SAME SINCE THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FIRST AND SECOND ROUND HAD FILED BEFORE AO ALL THE RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS. BEFORE US ALSO ALL COPIES AND DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS, HAVE BEEN FILED AND W DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CALLED FOR THE SAME AND EXAMINED IT, SO HE HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE OBSERVATION AGAINST IT. SO, LD. PR. CITS ALLEGATION IN RESPECT OF NONEXAMINATION OF BANK ACCOUNTS ARE BASELESS AND DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. (F) THE OTHER FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO TRACE OUT THE MONEY TRAIL WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS INTO MANUFACTURING OF BRICKS USING FLY ASH AND HAD SET UP ITS FACTORY AND THE SHARE HOLDER ARE THE PROMOTERS/GROUP ALLEGATION HAS BEEN LEVELLED AGAINST THE SHAREHOLDERS THAT THEY ARE ENTRY PROVIDERS. WE NOTE THAT EARLIER CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THEM HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN PREVIOUS YEARS, AND ALSO THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE EARLIER YEARS OF ASSE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE SAME. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED SUPRA, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT. (G) THE LAST FAULT TAKEN NOTE BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE SUFFERS FROM INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRY. 21 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD SHAREHOLDER INDIVIDUAL WAS FATHER OF AN EXISTING DIRECTOR; AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR HAD STARTED EXPANSION ACTIVITIES OF THE BUSINESS OF MAKING/MANUFACTURING FLY ASH BRICKS. WE NOTE THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL INF USED INTO THE COMPANY HAS YIELDED RESULT. AND MOREOVER THE INVESTOR COMPANIES WERE GROUP COMPANIES AND SHARES ALLOTTED THIS YEAR WAS TO EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS AND ONLY NEW SHAREHOLDERS WAS THE FATHER OF A DIRECTOR. AS STATED EARLIER, THE PROMOTER AND GROUP COMPANIES FOUND POTENTIAL OF GROWTH IN THE BUSINESS AND HAD MADE THE INVESTMENT AND PREMIUM WHICH WAS AGREED UPON MUTUALLY BY ALL THE EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXPANSION AND FUTURE RETURN EXPECTED OF IT. AFTER APPRECIATING THESE F ACTS AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FINANCIAL RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS ON THE DATE OF REASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THE GENUINITY OF THE TRANSACTION, SO NOTHING TURNS AROUND IN RESPECT OF THIS FAULT RAISED BY E NEXT FAULT FOUND BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE PREMIUM. FROM THE AFORESAID REASONS (SUPRA) (B), THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE TRANSACTION WHICH ON THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND IS A PROBABLE VIEW. TED BY LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO COLLECT RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN ORDER TO REACH A LOGICAL CONCLUSION. WE DO NOT COUNTENANCE THIS FAULT POINTED OUT BY LD. PR. CIT FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IT IS FIRST OF ALL A VAGUE ALLEGATION WITHOUT SPELLING OU T WHAT RELEVANT EVIDENCES WERE NOT COLLECTED BY THE AO. WE NOTE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED DOCUMENTS BEFORE AO, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED BEFORE US, WHICH IS RUNNING TO THREE (3) VOLUMES. [ VOLUME I VOLUME II 231 PAGES, VOLUME III -362 PAGES;] AN D THE AO AFTER PERSONALLY SUMMONING THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE HOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND AFTER RECORDING THEIR STATEMENTS, AND AFTER VERIFYING THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, HAS ACCEPTED THE SHARE CAPITAL/PREMIUM INFUSED INTO THE AS SESSEE COMPANY WHICH ACTION OF AO CANNOT BE CALLED A PERVERSE ORDER AND ACCORDING TO US, THE AO FROM THE ACTIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AND ADJUDICATOR AND TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW WHICH SUSTAINABLE VIEW ON FACTS OR LAW. (E) THE OTHER FAULT TAKEN NOTE BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE ALL BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD. TO THIS ALLEGATION OF LD. PR. CIT, WE ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND THE SAME SINCE THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FIRST AND SECOND ROUND HAD FILED BEFORE AO ALL THE RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS. BEFORE US ALSO ALL COPIES AND DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS, HAVE BEEN FILED AND W DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CALLED FOR THE SAME AND EXAMINED IT, SO HE HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE OBSERVATION AGAINST IT. SO, LD. PR. CITS ALLEGATION IN RESPECT OF NONEXAMINATION OF BANK ACCOUNTS ARE BASELESS AND DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. (F) THE OTHER FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO TRACE OUT THE MONEY WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS INTO MANUFACTURING OF BRICKS USING FLY ASH AND HAD SET UP ITS FACTORY AND THE SHARE HOLDER ARE THE PROMOTERS/GROUP ALLEGATION HAS BEEN LEVELLED AGAINST THE SHAREHOLDERS THAT THEY ARE ENTRY PROVIDERS. WE NOTE THAT EARLIER CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THEM HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN PREVIOUS YEARS, AND ALSO THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE EARLIER YEARS OF ASSE SSMENT HAVE NOT BEEN REOPENED THOUGH THERE WAS SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE SAME. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED SUPRA, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT. (G) THE LAST FAULT TAKEN NOTE BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PRIMA FACIE SUFFERS FROM INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRY. ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . SHAREHOLDER INDIVIDUAL WAS FATHER OF AN EXISTING DIRECTOR; AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR HAD STARTED EXPANSION ACTIVITIES OF THE BUSINESS OF MAKING/MANUFACTURING USED INTO THE COMPANY HAS YIELDED RESULT. AND MOREOVER THE INVESTOR COMPANIES WERE GROUP COMPANIES AND SHARES ALLOTTED THIS YEAR WAS TO EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS AND ONLY NEW SHAREHOLDERS WAS THE FATHER OF A DIRECTOR. AS COMPANIES FOUND POTENTIAL OF GROWTH IN THE BUSINESS AND HAD MADE THE INVESTMENT AND PREMIUM WHICH WAS AGREED UPON MUTUALLY BY ALL THE EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXPANSION AND FUTURE RETURN ACTS AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FINANCIAL RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS ON THE DATE OF REASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THE GENUINITY OF THE TRANSACTION, SO NOTHING TURNS AROUND IN RESPECT OF THIS FAULT RAISED BY E NEXT FAULT FOUND BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE PREMIUM. FROM THE AFORESAID REASONS (SUPRA) (B), THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE TED BY LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO COLLECT RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN WE DO NOT COUNTENANCE THIS FAULT POINTED OUT BY LD. PR. CIT FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IT IS T WHAT RELEVANT EVIDENCES WERE NOT COLLECTED BY THE AO. WE NOTE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED DOCUMENTS BEFORE AO, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED BEFORE US, WHICH IS RUNNING TO THREE (3) VOLUMES. [ VOLUME I -201 PAGES, D THE AO AFTER PERSONALLY SUMMONING THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE HOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND AFTER RECORDING THEIR STATEMENTS, AND AFTER VERIFYING THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, HAS ACCEPTED THE SHARE SESSEE COMPANY WHICH ACTION OF AO CANNOT BE CALLED A PERVERSE ORDER AND ACCORDING TO US, THE AO FROM THE ACTIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AND ADJUDICATOR AND TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW WHICH (E) THE OTHER FAULT TAKEN NOTE BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE ALL BANK TO THIS ALLEGATION OF LD. PR. CIT, WE ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND THE SAME SINCE THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FIRST AND SECOND ROUND HAD FILED BEFORE AO ALL THE RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS. BEFORE US ALSO ALL COPIES AND DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS, HAVE BEEN FILED AND W E FIND THAT AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CALLED FOR THE SAME AND EXAMINED IT, SO HE HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE OBSERVATION AGAINST IT. SO, LD. PR. CITS ALLEGATION IN RESPECT OF NONEXAMINATION (F) THE OTHER FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS THAT THE AO FAILED TO TRACE OUT THE MONEY WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS INTO MANUFACTURING OF BRICKS USING FLY ASH AND HAD COMPANIES AND NO ALLEGATION HAS BEEN LEVELLED AGAINST THE SHAREHOLDERS THAT THEY ARE ENTRY PROVIDERS. WE NOTE THAT EARLIER CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THEM HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN PREVIOUS YEARS, AND SSMENT HAVE NOT BEEN REOPENED THOUGH THERE WAS SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE SAME. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED SUPRA, WE REASSESSMENT ORDER PRIMA FACIE WE DO NOT COUNTENANCE THIS ALLEGATION OF THE LD. PR. CIT. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED IN DETAIL ABOUT HOW THE AO HAS CALLED THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE HOLDERS AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS AND GONE THROUGH THE VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE SHAREHOLDERS HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINITY OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION WHO OTHER THAN THE PROMOTERS, DIRECTORS AND GROUP COMPANIES AND THE AO AFTER EXAMINING AND SATISFYING HIMSELF ABOUT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM HAS ACCEPTED IT. THUS IT IS NOTED THAT INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRY WAS MADE AND FURTHER IT IS NOT PR. CIT AS TO WHAT FURTHER ENQUIRY WAS NEEDED OR HOW THE ENQUIRY MADE BY AO IS WRONG, WITHOUT WHICH IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED SUPRA, THE LD PR CIT CANNOT TERM THE ORDER OF AO AS ERRONEOUS. 15. THUS, WE FIND THAT DURING THE REVISIONAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DATED 10.06.2016 AND PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT, THE AO IN THE SECOND ROUND HAD SUMMONED THE DIRECTORS OF GROUP COMPANIES AS WELL AS THA STATEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THEM TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS ON THEM ABOUT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE AO HAS RECORDED THEIR STATEMENT DURING REASSES ELICITED ANSWERS ABOUT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS WELL AS THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT ETC. SO, FROM THE AFORESAID ACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE AO DURING THE REASSESS MENT PROCEEDING CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT WITH FOR LACK OF ENQUIRY AND THUS, WE NOTE THAT AO HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AS PER THE DIRECTION OF LD. PR. CIT DATED 10.06.2016 U/S. 263 OF THE ACT (FIRST 263 ORDER) AND FURTHER WE NOTE THAT THE LD. PR. CIT WHILE ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHILE EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION FOR SECOND TIME HAS NOT MADE EVEN A WHISPER ABOUT THE NON PART OF AO IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT DATED 1 WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 20.03.2015. AND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT FOUND FAULT WITH THE ACTION OF THE AO IN GIVING EFFECT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY HIM WHILE PASSING T 10.06.2016. THUS, WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CITS ORDER DATED 10.06.2016 (FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER) HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS INQUIRY CONDUCTED AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 794 PAGES WHICH REVEALS THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIB SEC. 68 OF THE ACT IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS/DIRECTORS PARTICIPATING IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REFERRED SUPRA, THE ASSESS 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 AO IN THE ORIGINAL THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER AND THE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED OF THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE GROUP COMPANY SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, THE LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THE REASSESS MENT ORDER 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 UNLESS THE LD. PR. CIT BASED ON AN ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY HIMSELF IN THE SECOND ROUND ATLEAST IS ABLE TO UPSET THE AOS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND HIS DECISION NOT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT AOS VIEW TO ACCEPT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT ANY RATE CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW ON LAW OR FACTS. 22 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD WE DO NOT COUNTENANCE THIS ALLEGATION OF THE LD. PR. CIT. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED IN DETAIL ABOUT HOW THE AO HAS CALLED THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE HOLDERS AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS AND GONE THROUGH THE VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE SHAREHOLDERS HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINITY OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION WHO OTHER THAN THE PROMOTERS, DIRECTORS AND GROUP COMPANIES AND THE AO AFTER EXAMINING AND SATISFYING HIMSELF ABOUT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM HAS ACCEPTED IT. THUS IT IS NOTED THAT INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRY WAS MADE AND FURTHER IT IS NOT PR. CIT AS TO WHAT FURTHER ENQUIRY WAS NEEDED OR HOW THE ENQUIRY MADE BY AO IS WRONG, WITHOUT WHICH IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED SUPRA, THE LD PR CIT CANNOT TERM THE ORDER OF AO AS ERRONEOUS. THUS, WE FIND THAT DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DATED 10.06.2016 AND PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT, THE AO IN THE SECOND ROUND HAD SUMMONED THE DIRECTORS OF GROUP COMPANIES AS WELL AS THA T OF ASSESSEE AND EXAMINED THE BOOKS AND THE BANK STATEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THEM TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS ON THEM ABOUT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE AO HAS RECORDED THEIR STATEMENT DURING REASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN HE HAS QUESTIONED AND ELICITED ANSWERS ABOUT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS WELL AS THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT ETC. SO, FROM THE AFORESAID ACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE MENT PROCEEDING CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT WITH FOR LACK OF ENQUIRY AND THUS, WE NOTE THAT AO HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AS PER THE DIRECTION OF LD. PR. CIT DATED 10.06.2016 U/S. 263 OF THE ACT (FIRST 263 ORDER) AND FURTHER WE NOTE THAT THE PR. CIT WHILE ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHILE EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION FOR SECOND TIME HAS NOT MADE EVEN A WHISPER ABOUT THE NON - COMPLIANCE/FAILURE ON THE PART OF AO IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT DATED 1 WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 20.03.2015. AND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT FOUND FAULT WITH THE ACTION OF THE AO IN GIVING EFFECT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY HIM WHILE PASSING T HE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER ON 10.06.2016. THUS, WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CITS ORDER DATED 10.06.2016 (FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER) HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF LD. PR. CIT AND BASED ON THE INQUIRY CONDUCTED AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 794 PAGES WHICH REVEALS THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIB ERS, THE SATISFACTION OF AO AS ENVISAGED IN SEC. 68 OF THE ACT IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS/DIRECTORS PARTICIPATING IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REFERRED SUPRA, THE ASSESS EE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON 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 AO IN THE ORIGINAL AS WELL AS REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE DOCUMENTS ARE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER AND THE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED OF THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE GROUP COMPANY SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, THE LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN MENT ORDER 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 UNLESS THE LD. PR. CIT BASED ON AN ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY HIMSELF IN THE SECOND ROUND ATLEAST IS ABLE TO UPSET THE AOS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND HIS DECISION NOT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT AOS VIEW TO ACCEPT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED FROM THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT ANY RATE CAN BE TERMED AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW ON LAW OR FACTS. ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . WE DO NOT COUNTENANCE THIS ALLEGATION OF THE LD. PR. CIT. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED IN DETAIL ABOUT HOW THE AO HAS CALLED THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE HOLDERS AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS AND GONE THROUGH THE VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE SHAREHOLDERS HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON IT TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINITY OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION WHO ARE NONE OTHER THAN THE PROMOTERS, DIRECTORS AND GROUP COMPANIES AND THE AO AFTER EXAMINING AND SATISFYING HIMSELF ABOUT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM HAS ACCEPTED IT. THUS IT IS NOTED THAT INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRY WAS MADE AND FURTHER IT IS NOT POINTED OUT BY LD. PR. CIT AS TO WHAT FURTHER ENQUIRY WAS NEEDED OR HOW THE ENQUIRY MADE BY AO IS WRONG, WITHOUT WHICH IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED SUPRA, THE LD PR CIT CANNOT TERM THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DATED 10.06.2016 AND PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT, THE AO IN THE SECOND ROUND HAD SUMMONED THE DIRECTORS OF T OF ASSESSEE AND EXAMINED THE BOOKS AND THE BANK STATEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THEM TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS ON THEM ABOUT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE AO HAS SMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN HE HAS QUESTIONED AND ELICITED ANSWERS ABOUT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS WELL AS THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT ETC. SO, FROM THE AFORESAID ACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE MENT PROCEEDING CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT WITH FOR LACK OF ENQUIRY AND THUS, WE NOTE THAT AO HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY AS AN INVESTIGATOR AS PER THE DIRECTION OF LD. PR. CIT DATED 10.06.2016 U/S. 263 OF THE ACT (FIRST 263 ORDER) AND FURTHER WE NOTE THAT THE PR. CIT WHILE ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHILE EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION COMPLIANCE/FAILURE ON THE PART OF AO IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT DATED 1 0.06.2016 WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 20.03.2015. AND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT FOUND FAULT WITH THE ACTION OF THE AO IN GIVING HE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER ON 10.06.2016. THUS, WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CITS ORDER DATED 10.06.2016 (FIRST OF LD. PR. CIT AND BASED ON THE INQUIRY CONDUCTED AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS RUNNING MORE THAN 794 PAGES WHICH REVEALS THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM ERS, THE SATISFACTION OF AO AS ENVISAGED IN SEC. 68 OF THE ACT IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS/DIRECTORS PARTICIPATING IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND OTHER EE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON 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 AS WELL AS REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE DOCUMENTS ARE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER AND THE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED OF THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE GROUP COMPANY SHARE SUBSCRIBERS, THE LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN MENT ORDER 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 UNLESS THE LD. PR. CIT BASED ON AN ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY HIMSELF IN THE SECOND ROUND ATLEAST IS ABLE TO UPSET THE AOS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS AND HIS DECISION NOT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 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 AS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND AT ANY RATE CAN 25. THUS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS OF THE HONBLE APEX/HIGH COURT/TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACTION/VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO AFTER ENQUIRY MADE BY HIM AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CIT IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.06.2 016 PURSUANT TO WHICH THE AO HAS REASSESSED THE ASSESSEE AFTER INQUIRY AND ACCEPTED THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND CANNOT BE HELD TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW IN FACTS OR LAW, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ACTION OF THE L D. PR. CIT TO INTERFERE WITH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO, IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 26. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION ON FACT AS WELL AS ON LAW, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT AOS ACTION (REASSESSMENT) PUR LD. PR. CIT DATED 10.06.2016, TO ACCEPT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM AS A POSSIBLE VIEW IN FACTS AND LAW AS PER THE RATIO LAID BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) THE A ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR USURPING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IS ABSENT AND, THEREFORE, THE LD. PR. CIT LACKED JURISD THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED AND, THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED (SUPRA), WE ARE INCLINED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. PR. C IT DATED 12.03.2019. 10. THE HONEBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PVT. LTD. V CIT (AP) 354 ITR 35 EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE PRINCIPAL COM AND CULLED OUT VARIOUS PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN ISSUE AS BELOW : 24. IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO.LTD. ( 2 SUPRA), BARE READING OF SEC.263 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PREREQUISITE FOR THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER SUOMOTU UNDER IT, IS THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE ACT. IT ALSO HELD AT PG 'THE PHRASE 'PREJUDICIAL CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REV OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE: OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT THAT WHERE A SUM NOT EARNED BY A PERSON IS ASSESSED AS INCOME IN H SO OFFERING, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTING THE SAME AS SUCH WILL BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. RAMPYARIDEVISARAOGI V. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) AND IN SMT. TARA DEVI AGGARWAL V. CIT (197 23 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD THUS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS OF THE HONBLE APEX/HIGH COURT/TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACTION/VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO AFTER ENQUIRY MADE BY HIM AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CIT IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS DATED 016 PURSUANT TO WHICH THE AO HAS REASSESSED THE ASSESSEE AFTER INQUIRY AND ACCEPTED THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND CANNOT BE HELD TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW IN FACTS OR LAW, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ACTION OF D. PR. CIT TO INTERFERE WITH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO, IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION ON FACT AS WELL AS ON LAW, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT AOS ACTION (REASSESSMENT) PUR SUANT TO THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF LD. PR. CIT DATED 10.06.2016, TO ACCEPT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM AS A POSSIBLE VIEW IN FACTS AND LAW AS PER THE RATIO LAID BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) THE A OS ACTION/REASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR USURPING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IS ABSENT AND, THEREFORE, THE LD. PR. CIT LACKED JURISD ICTION TO ASSUME SECOND TIME REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED AND, THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED (SUPRA), WE ARE INCLINED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF IT DATED 12.03.2019. THE HONEBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SPECTRA SHARES AND SCRIPS PVT. LTD. V CIT (AP) 354 ITR 35 HAD CONSIDERED A NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS ON THIS ISSUE OF EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE PRINCIPAL COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN DIFFERENT JUDGMENTS BY THE COURTS MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO.LTD. ( 2 SUPRA), THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A BARE READING OF SEC.263 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PREREQUISITE FOR THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER SUOMOTU UNDER IT, IS THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE RESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT IF THE O RDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SEC.263 (1) OF THE ACT. IT ALSO HELD AT PG -88 AS FOLLOWS: 'THE PHRASE 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE' HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REV ENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE: OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT THAT WHERE A SUM NOT EARNED BY A PERSON IS ASSESSED AS INCOME IN H IS HANDS ON HIS SO OFFERING, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTING THE SAME AS SUCH WILL BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. RAMPYARIDEVISARAOGI V. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) AND IN SMT. TARA DEVI AGGARWAL V. CIT (197 3) 88 ITR 323 (SC)'. ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . THUS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS OF THE HONBLE APEX/HIGH COURT/TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACTION/VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO AFTER ENQUIRY MADE BY HIM AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. PR. CIT IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS DATED 016 PURSUANT TO WHICH THE AO HAS REASSESSED THE ASSESSEE AFTER INQUIRY AND ACCEPTED THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND CANNOT BE HELD TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE VIEW IN FACTS OR LAW, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ACTION OF D. PR. CIT TO INTERFERE WITH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO, IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION ON FACT AS WELL AS ON LAW, WE ARE OF THE SUANT TO THE FIRST REVISIONAL ORDER OF LD. PR. CIT DATED 10.06.2016, TO ACCEPT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM AS A POSSIBLE VIEW IN FACTS AND LAW AS PER THE RATIO LAID BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. OS ACTION/REASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR USURPING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IS ABSENT AND, THEREFORE, ICTION TO ASSUME SECOND TIME REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED AND, THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED (SUPRA), WE ARE INCLINED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SPECTRA SHARES AND SCRIPS HAD CONSIDERED A NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS ON THIS ISSUE OF MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BY THE COURTS ON THIS THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A BARE READING OF SEC.263 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PREREQUISITE FOR THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER SUOMOTU UNDER IT, IS THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX RESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE RDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SEC.263 (1) OF THE TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE' HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS ENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME -TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT IS HANDS ON HIS SO OFFERING, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTING THE SAME AS SUCH WILL BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. RAMPYARIDEVISARAOGI V. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) AND IN SMT. TARA DEVI 25. IN MAX INDIA LTD. CO.LTD. (2 SUPRA) AND OBSERVED THAT EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE; OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ON THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, SEC.80HHC(3) AS IT THEN STOOD WAS INTERPRETED BY THE ASSE THAT IN VIEW OF THE 2005 AMENDMENT WHICH IS CLARIFICATORY AND RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE COMMISSIONER WAS CORRECT IN INVOKING SEC.263. BUT THE SUPREME THE SAID CONTENTION AND HELD THAT WHEN THE COMMISSIONER PASSED HIS ORDER DISAGREEING WITH THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WERE TWO VIEWS ON THE WORD 'PROFITS' IN THAT SECTION; THAT THE SAID SECTION WAS AMENDED ELEVEN TIMES; THAT DIF FERENT VIEWS EXISTED ON THE DAY WHEN THE COMMISSIONER PASSED HIS ORDER; THAT THE MECHANICS OF THE SECTION HAD BECOME SO COMPLICATED OVER THE YEARS THAT TWO VIEWS WERE INHERENTLY POSSIBLE; AND THEREFORE, THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT IN 2005 EVEN THOUGH RETROSPE 26. IN VIKAS POLYMERS SUOMOTU REVISION EXERCISABLE BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.263 IS SUPERVISORY IN NATURE; THAT AN 'ERRONEOUS JUD ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; THAT IF AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MAKES A CERTAIN ASSESSMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE BRANDED AS 'ERRONEOUS' BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD H WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY OR MORE ELABORATELY; THAT THE SECTION DOES NOT VISUALIZE THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THAT OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WHO PASSED THE ORDER UNLESS THE DECISION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW; THAT TO INVOKE SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS TO REOPEN A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.263, THE COMMISSIONER MUST GIVE REASONS; THAT A BARE REITERATION BY HIM THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF BE SUCH AS TO SHOW THAT THE ENHANCEMENT OR MODIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED FOR A FRESH ASSESSMENT WERE CALLED FOR, AND MUST IRRESISTIBLY LEAD TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THUS, WHILE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT CALLED UPON TO WRITE AN ELABORATE JUDGMENT GIVING DETAILED REASONS IN RESPECT OF EACH DISALLOWANCE, DEDUCTION, ETC., IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSIONER NOT TO EXERCISE HIS SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS UNLESS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE REASONS FOR DOING SO; THAT IF A QUERY IS RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, WHICH WAS ANSWERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT NEITHER THE QUERY NOR THE ANSWER WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS WOULD NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR INTERFERE NCE AND REVISION. 27. IN SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE A DETAILED REASON IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF DEDUCTION, ETC.; THAT WHETHER THERE WAS APPLI MIND BEFORE ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS TO BE SEEN; THAT IF THERE WAS AN INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SEC.263 MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN TH E MATTER; THAT IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY THAT SUCH A COURSE 24 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD MAX INDIA LTD. (3 SUPRA) , REITERATED THE VIEW IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL (2 SUPRA) AND OBSERVED THAT EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE; OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ON THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, SEC.80HHC(3) AS IT THEN STOOD WAS INTERPRETED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER BUT THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE 2005 AMENDMENT WHICH IS CLARIFICATORY AND RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE COMMISSIONER WAS CORRECT IN INVOKING SEC.263. BUT THE SUPREME COURT REJECTED THE SAID CONTENTION AND HELD THAT WHEN THE COMMISSIONER PASSED HIS ORDER DISAGREEING WITH THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WERE TWO VIEWS ON THE WORD 'PROFITS' IN THAT SECTION; THAT THE SAID SECTION WAS AMENDED ELEVEN TIMES; FERENT VIEWS EXISTED ON THE DAY WHEN THE COMMISSIONER PASSED HIS ORDER; THAT THE MECHANICS OF THE SECTION HAD BECOME SO COMPLICATED OVER THE YEARS THAT TWO VIEWS WERE INHERENTLY POSSIBLE; AND THEREFORE, THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT IN 2005 EVEN THOUGH RETROSPE CTIVE WILL NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISION OF SEC.263. VIKAS POLYMERS (4 SUPRA), THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE POWER OF SUOMOTU REVISION EXERCISABLE BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.263 IS SUPERVISORY IN NATURE; THAT AN 'ERRONEOUS JUD GMENT' MEANS ONE WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; THAT IF AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MAKES A CERTAIN ASSESSMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE BRANDED AS 'ERRONEOUS' BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD H WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY OR MORE ELABORATELY; THAT THE SECTION DOES NOT VISUALIZE THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THAT OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WHO PASSED THE ORDER UNLESS THE DECISION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TO INVOKE SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS TO REOPEN A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.263, THE COMMISSIONER MUST GIVE REASONS; THAT A BARE REITERATION BY HIM THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, WILL NOT SUFFICE; THAT THE REASONS MUST BE SUCH AS TO SHOW THAT THE ENHANCEMENT OR MODIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED FOR A FRESH ASSESSMENT WERE CALLED FOR, AND MUST IRRESISTIBLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THUS, WHILE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT CALLED UPON TO WRITE AN ELABORATE JUDGMENT GIVING DETAILED REASONS IN RESPECT OF EACH DISALLOWANCE, DEDUCTION, ETC., IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSIONER NOT TO EXERCISE HIS SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS UNLESS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE REASONS FOR DOING SO; THAT IF A QUERY IS RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY BY THE ICER, WHICH WAS ANSWERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT NEITHER THE QUERY NOR THE ANSWER WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS WOULD NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER NCE AND REVISION. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. ( 5 SUPRA), THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE A DETAILED REASON IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF DEDUCTION, ETC.; THAT WHETHER THERE WAS APPLI MIND BEFORE ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS TO BE SEEN; THAT IF THERE WAS AN INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SEC.263 MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT E MATTER; THAT IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY THAT SUCH A COURSE ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . MALABAR INDUSTRIAL (2 SUPRA) AND OBSERVED THAT EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES TS OF THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE; OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ON THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, SEC.80HHC(3) AS IT SSING OFFICER BUT THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE 2005 AMENDMENT WHICH IS CLARIFICATORY AND RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE COURT REJECTED THE SAID CONTENTION AND HELD THAT WHEN THE COMMISSIONER PASSED HIS ORDER DISAGREEING WITH THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WERE TWO VIEWS ON THE WORD 'PROFITS' IN THAT SECTION; THAT THE SAID SECTION WAS AMENDED ELEVEN TIMES; FERENT VIEWS EXISTED ON THE DAY WHEN THE COMMISSIONER PASSED HIS ORDER; THAT THE MECHANICS OF THE SECTION HAD BECOME SO COMPLICATED OVER THE YEARS THAT TWO VIEWS WERE INHERENTLY POSSIBLE; AND THEREFORE, THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT IN CTIVE WILL NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISION OF SEC.263. (4 SUPRA), THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE POWER OF SUOMOTU REVISION EXERCISABLE BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.263 GMENT' MEANS ONE WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; THAT IF AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MAKES A CERTAIN ASSESSMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE BRANDED AS 'ERRONEOUS' BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD H AVE BEEN WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY OR MORE ELABORATELY; THAT THE SECTION DOES NOT VISUALIZE THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THAT OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WHO PASSED THE ORDER UNLESS THE DECISION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TO INVOKE SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS TO REOPEN A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.263, THE COMMISSIONER MUST GIVE REASONS; THAT A BARE REITERATION BY HIM THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS THE REVENUE, WILL NOT SUFFICE; THAT THE REASONS MUST BE SUCH AS TO SHOW THAT THE ENHANCEMENT OR MODIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED FOR A FRESH ASSESSMENT WERE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THUS, WHILE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT CALLED UPON TO WRITE AN ELABORATE JUDGMENT GIVING DETAILED REASONS IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY DISALLOWANCE, DEDUCTION, ETC., IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSIONER NOT TO EXERCISE HIS SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS UNLESS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE REASONS FOR DOING SO; THAT IF A QUERY IS RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY BY THE ICER, WHICH WAS ANSWERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT NEITHER THE QUERY NOR THE ANSWER WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS WOULD NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ( 5 SUPRA), THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE A DETAILED REASON IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF DEDUCTION, ETC.; THAT WHETHER THERE WAS APPLI CATION OF MIND BEFORE ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS TO BE SEEN; THAT IF THERE WAS AN INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SEC.263 MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT E MATTER; THAT IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY THAT SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE OPEN; THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE ON AN INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION, A L JUST, HAS BEEN IMPOSED. IN THAT CASE, THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER IN THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL POWER COULD NOT HAVE OBJECTED TO THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT EXPENDITURE ON TOOLS AND DIES BY THE ASSE A MANUFACTURER OF CAR PARTS, IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHERE THE SAID CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY THE LATTER ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHERE THE SAME ACCOUNTING PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NUMBER OF YEARS WITH THE AP PROVAL OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. IT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CALLED FOR EXPLANATION ON THE VERY ITEM FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ITS EXPLANATION. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER DID NOT MAKE AN ELABORA AS ERRONEOUS. THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER TO VARY THAT OPINION AND ASK FOR FRESH INQUIRY. 28. IN GABRIEL INDIA CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSIONER AS TO WHETHER AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, MUST BE BASED ON MATERIALS ON THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS CALLED FOR RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE COMMISSIONER ACTING IN A REASONABLE MANNER COULD HAVE COME TO SUCH A CONCLUSION, THE VERY INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY HIM WILL BE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. I COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO START FISHING AND ROVING INQUIRIES IN MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED; THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BEGIN FRESH LITIGATION BECAUSE OF NEW VIEWS THEY ENTERTA ON FACTS OR NEW VERSIONS WHICH THEY PRESENT AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE INFERENCE OR PROPER INFERENCE EITHER OF THE FACTS DISCLOSED OR THE WEIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE; THAT IF THIS IS PERMITTED, LITIGATION WOULD HAVE NO END EXCEPT WHEN LEGAL INGENUITY IS EX HAUSTED; THAT TO DO SO IS TO DIVIDE ONE ARGUMENT INTO TWO AND MULTIPLY THE LITIGATION. IT HELD THAT CASES MAY BE VISUALIZED WHERE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WHILE MAKING AN ASSESSMENT EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES INQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINES THE INCOME EITHER BY ACCEPTING THE ACCOUNT OR BY MAKING SOME ESTIMATE HIMSELF; THAT THE COMMISSIONER, ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, MAY BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE OFFICER CONCERNED WAS ON THE LOWER SI HE WOULD HAVE ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT A FIGURE HIGHER THAN THE ONE DETERMINED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER; BUT THAT WOULD NOT VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH POWER TO REEXAMINE THE ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINE THE INCOME HIMSELF AT A HIG THERE MUST BE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD CALLED FOR BY THE COMMISSIONER TO SATISFY HIM PRIMA FACIE THAT THE ORDER IS BOTH ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. OTHERWISE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING UNBRIDLED AND ARBITR ARY POWER TO THE REVISING AUTHORITY TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR REVISION IN EVERY CASE AND START RE ALREADY BEEN CONCLUDED UNDER LAW. 29. IN M.S. RAJU (15 SUPRA), THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SEC.263 (1) IS NOT LIMITED ONLY TO THE MATERIAL WHICH WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THE COMMISSIONER IS ENTITLED TO EXAMINE ANY OTHER RECORDS WHICH ARE 25 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD OF ACTION WOULD BE OPEN; THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY; THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE ON AN INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION, A L ESSER TAX THAN WHAT WAS JUST, HAS BEEN IMPOSED. IN THAT CASE, THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER IN THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL POWER COULD NOT HAVE OBJECTED TO THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT EXPENDITURE ON TOOLS AND DIES BY THE ASSE A MANUFACTURER OF CAR PARTS, IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHERE THE SAID CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY THE LATTER ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHERE THE SAME ACCOUNTING PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NUMBER OF YEARS PROVAL OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. IT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CALLED FOR EXPLANATION ON THE VERY ITEM FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ITS EXPLANATION. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER DID NOT MAKE AN ELABORA TE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD, HIS ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS. THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER TO VARY THAT OPINION AND ASK FOR GABRIEL INDIA LTD. (6 SUPRA), THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT A CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSIONER AS TO WHETHER AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, MUST BE BASED ON MATERIALS ON THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS CALLED FOR BY HIM. IF THERE ARE NO MATERIALS ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE COMMISSIONER ACTING IN A REASONABLE MANNER COULD HAVE COME TO SUCH A CONCLUSION, THE VERY INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY HIM WILL BE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. I T HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO START FISHING AND ROVING INQUIRIES IN MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED; THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BEGIN FRESH LITIGATION BECAUSE OF NEW VIEWS THEY ENTERTA ON FACTS OR NEW VERSIONS WHICH THEY PRESENT AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE INFERENCE OR PROPER INFERENCE EITHER OF THE FACTS DISCLOSED OR THE WEIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE; THAT IF THIS IS PERMITTED, LITIGATION WOULD HAVE NO END EXCEPT WHEN LEGAL INGENUITY HAUSTED; THAT TO DO SO IS TO DIVIDE ONE ARGUMENT INTO TWO AND MULTIPLY THE LITIGATION. IT HELD THAT CASES MAY BE VISUALIZED WHERE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WHILE MAKING AN ASSESSMENT EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES INQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINES THE INCOME EITHER BY ACCEPTING THE ACCOUNT OR BY MAKING SOME ESTIMATE HIMSELF; THAT THE COMMISSIONER, ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, MAY BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE OFFICER CONCERNED WAS ON THE LOWER SI DE AND LEFT TO THE COMMISSIONER HE WOULD HAVE ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT A FIGURE HIGHER THAN THE ONE DETERMINED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER; BUT THAT WOULD NOT VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH POWER TO REEXAMINE THE ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINE THE INCOME HIMSELF AT A HIG THERE MUST BE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD CALLED FOR BY THE COMMISSIONER TO SATISFY HIM PRIMA FACIE THAT THE ORDER IS BOTH ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. OTHERWISE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING UNBRIDLED AND ARY POWER TO THE REVISING AUTHORITY TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR REVISION IN EVERY CASE AND START RE - EXAMINATION AND FRESH INQUIRY IN MATTERS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONCLUDED UNDER LAW. (15 SUPRA), THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SEC.263 (1) IS NOT LIMITED ONLY TO THE MATERIAL WHICH WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THE COMMISSIONER IS ENTITLED TO EXAMINE ANY OTHER RECORDS WHICH ARE ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . OF ACTION WOULD BE OPEN; THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY; THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT ESSER TAX THAN WHAT WAS JUST, HAS BEEN IMPOSED. IN THAT CASE, THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER IN THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL POWER COULD NOT HAVE OBJECTED TO THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT EXPENDITURE ON TOOLS AND DIES BY THE ASSE SSEE, A MANUFACTURER OF CAR PARTS, IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHERE THE SAID CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY THE LATTER ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHERE THE SAME ACCOUNTING PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NUMBER OF YEARS PROVAL OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. IT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CALLED FOR EXPLANATION ON THE VERY ITEM FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ITS EXPLANATION. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER TE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD, HIS ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS. THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER TO VARY THAT OPINION AND ASK FOR (6 SUPRA), THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT A CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSIONER AS TO WHETHER AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, MUST BE BASED ON MATERIALS ON BY HIM. IF THERE ARE NO MATERIALS ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE COMMISSIONER ACTING IN A REASONABLE MANNER COULD HAVE COME TO SUCH A CONCLUSION, THE VERY INITIATION OF T HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO START FISHING AND ROVING INQUIRIES IN MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED; THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BEGIN FRESH LITIGATION BECAUSE OF NEW VIEWS THEY ENTERTA IN ON FACTS OR NEW VERSIONS WHICH THEY PRESENT AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE INFERENCE OR PROPER INFERENCE EITHER OF THE FACTS DISCLOSED OR THE WEIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE; THAT IF THIS IS PERMITTED, LITIGATION WOULD HAVE NO END EXCEPT WHEN LEGAL INGENUITY HAUSTED; THAT TO DO SO IS TO DIVIDE ONE ARGUMENT INTO TWO AND MULTIPLY THE LITIGATION. IT HELD THAT CASES MAY BE VISUALIZED WHERE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WHILE MAKING AN ASSESSMENT EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES INQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINES THE INCOME EITHER BY ACCEPTING THE ACCOUNT OR BY MAKING SOME ESTIMATE HIMSELF; THAT THE COMMISSIONER, ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, MAY BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ESTIMATE DE AND LEFT TO THE COMMISSIONER HE WOULD HAVE ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT A FIGURE HIGHER THAN THE ONE DETERMINED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER; BUT THAT WOULD NOT VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH POWER TO REEXAMINE THE ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINE THE INCOME HIMSELF AT A HIG HER FIGURE; THERE MUST BE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD CALLED FOR BY THE COMMISSIONER TO SATISFY HIM PRIMA FACIE THAT THE ORDER IS BOTH ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. OTHERWISE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING UNBRIDLED AND ARY POWER TO THE REVISING AUTHORITY TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR REVISION IN EXAMINATION AND FRESH INQUIRY IN MATTERS WHICH HAVE (15 SUPRA), THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SEC.263 (1) IS NOT LIMITED ONLY TO THE MATERIAL WHICH WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THE COMMISSIONER IS ENTITLED TO EXAMINE ANY OTHER RECORDS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY HIM AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EVEN THOSE EVENTS WHICH AROSE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. 30. IN RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI REVISIONAL POWERS CANCELLED ASSESSEES ASSESSMENT FOR T 1960- 61 BECAUSE HE FOUND THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE INITIAL CAPITAL, THE GIFT RECEIVED AND SALE OF JEWELLERY, THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS ETC., WITHOUT ANY ENQUIRY OR EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER . HE DIRECTED INCOME TAX OFFICER TO DO FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER MAKING PROPER ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION IN REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION. THE ASSESSEE COMPLAINED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT THAT NO FAIR OR REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO HER. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT OFFICER MADE THE ASSESSMENTS IN UNDUE HURRY; THAT HE HAD PASSED A SHORT STEREO TYPED ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR; THAT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD, THE ORDERS WERE PRE - CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE OF THE COMMISSIONER TO INDICATE THE RESULTS OF THE ENQUIRY MADE BY HIM, AS SHE WOULD HAVE A FULL OPPORTUNITY FOR SHOWING TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WHETHER HE HAD JURISDICT THE INCOME TAX ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH WERE ORIGINALLY PASSED WERE CORRECT OR NOT' 31. FROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES AS TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S.263 OF THE ACT CAN BE CUL A) THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE RE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE HAD TO SEC.263 (1) OF THE ACT. B) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE WHEN AN INCOME- TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE: OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME C) TO INVOKE SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS TO REOPEN A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.263, THE CO MMISSIONER MUST GIVE REASONS; THAT A BARE REITERATION BY HIM THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, WILL NOT SUFFICE; THAT THE REASONS MUST BE SUCH AS TO SHOW THAT THE AND MUST IRRESISTIBLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THUS, WHILE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT CALLED UPON TO WRITE AN ELABORATE JUDGMENT GIVING DETAILED RE DISALLOWANCE, DEDUCTION, ETC., IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSIONER NOT TO EXERCISE HIS SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS UNLESS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE REASONS FOR DOING SO; THAT IF A QUERY IS RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRU ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS ANSWERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT NEITHER THE QUERY NOR THE ANSWER WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS WOULD NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF CALLED FOR INTERFERENCE AND REVISION. E) THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO START FISHING AND ROVING INQUIRIES IN MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED; THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BEGIN FRESH LITIGATION THEY ENTERTAIN ON FACTS OR NEW CIRCUMSTANCE; THAT IF THIS IS PERMITTED, LITIGATION WOULD HAVE NO END EXCEPT WHEN LEGAL INGENUITY IS EXHAUSTED 26 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD TIME OF EXAMINATION BY HIM AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EVEN THOSE EVENTS WHICH AROSE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI (21 SUPRA), THE COMMISSIONER IN EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL POWERS CANCELLED ASSESSEES ASSESSMENT FOR T HE YEARS 1952 61 BECAUSE HE FOUND THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE INITIAL CAPITAL, THE GIFT RECEIVED AND SALE OF JEWELLERY, THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS ETC., WITHOUT ANY ENQUIRY OR EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER . HE DIRECTED INCOME TAX OFFICER TO DO FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER MAKING PROPER ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION IN REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION. THE ASSESSEE COMPLAINED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT THAT NO FAIR OR REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO HER. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS AMPLE MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER MADE THE ASSESSMENTS IN UNDUE HURRY; THAT HE HAD PASSED A SHORT STEREO TYPED ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR; THAT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD, - JUDICIAL TO THE INTERE ST OF THE REVENUE; AND NO PREJUDICE WAS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE OF THE COMMISSIONER TO INDICATE THE RESULTS OF THE ENQUIRY MADE BY HIM, AS SHE WOULD HAVE A FULL OPPORTUNITY FOR SHOWING TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WHETHER HE HAD JURISDICT ION OR NOT AND WHETHER THE INCOME TAX ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH WERE ORIGINALLY PASSED WERE CORRECT OR NOT' 31. FROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES AS TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S.263 OF THE ACT CAN BE CUL LED OUT: A) THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE RE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SEC.263 (1) OF THE ACT. B) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE: OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. C) TO INVOKE SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS TO REOPEN A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT UNDER MMISSIONER MUST GIVE REASONS; THAT A BARE REITERATION BY HIM THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, WILL NOT SUFFICE; THAT THE REASONS MUST BE SUCH AS TO SHOW IRRESISTIBLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THUS, WHILE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT CALLED UPON TO WRITE AN ELABORATE JUDGMENT GIVING DETAILED RE ASONS IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY DISALLOWANCE, DEDUCTION, ETC., IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSIONER NOT TO EXERCISE HIS SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS UNLESS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE REASONS FOR DOING SO; THAT IF A QUERY IS RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRU ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS ANSWERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT NEITHER THE QUERY NOR THE ANSWER WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS WOULD NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF CALLED FOR INTERFERENCE AND REVISION. E) THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO START FISHING AND ROVING INQUIRIES IN MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED; THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BEGIN FRESH LITIGATION BECAUSE OF NEW VIEWS THEY ENTERTAIN ON FACTS OR NEW CIRCUMSTANCE; THAT IF THIS IS PERMITTED, LITIGATION WOULD HAVE NO END EXCEPT WHEN LEGAL INGENUITY IS EXHAUSTED ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . TIME OF EXAMINATION BY HIM AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EVEN (21 SUPRA), THE COMMISSIONER IN EXERCISE OF HE YEARS 1952 -1953 TO 61 BECAUSE HE FOUND THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE INITIAL CAPITAL, THE GIFT RECEIVED AND SALE OF JEWELLERY, THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS ETC., WITHOUT ANY ENQUIRY OR EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER . HE DIRECTED THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO DO FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER MAKING PROPER ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION IN REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION. THE ASSESSEE COMPLAINED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT THAT NO FAIR OR REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO HER. THE THERE WAS AMPLE MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER MADE THE ASSESSMENTS IN UNDUE HURRY; THAT HE HAD PASSED A SHORT STEREO TYPED ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR; THAT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD, ST OF THE REVENUE; AND NO PREJUDICE WAS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE OF THE COMMISSIONER TO INDICATE THE RESULTS OF THE ENQUIRY MADE BY HIM, AS SHE WOULD HAVE A FULL OPPORTUNITY FOR ION OR NOT AND WHETHER THE INCOME TAX ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH WERE ORIGINALLY PASSED 31. FROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES AS TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION A) THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE RE VENUE RECOURSE CANNOT BE B) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE: OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE , IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. C) TO INVOKE SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS TO REOPEN A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT UNDER MMISSIONER MUST GIVE REASONS; THAT A BARE REITERATION BY HIM THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, WILL NOT SUFFICE; THAT THE REASONS MUST BE SUCH AS TO SHOW IRRESISTIBLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THUS, WHILE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT CALLED UPON TO WRITE AN ASONS IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY DISALLOWANCE, DEDUCTION, ETC., IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSIONER NOT TO EXERCISE HIS SUOMOTU REVISIONAL POWERS UNLESS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE REASONS FOR DOING SO; THAT IF A QUERY IS RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRU TINY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS ANSWERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT NEITHER THE QUERY NOR THE ANSWER WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS WOULD NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER E) THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO START FISHING AND ROVING INQUIRIES IN MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED; THAT THE BECAUSE OF NEW VIEWS THEY ENTERTAIN ON FACTS OR NEW CIRCUMSTANCE; THAT IF THIS IS PERMITTED, LITIGATION F) WHETHER THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND BEFORE ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS TO BE SEEN; THAT IF THERE WAS AN INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SEC.263 MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER; THAT IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY THAT SUCH A ORDER MADE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY; THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE SHOW THAT THE TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE ON AN INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION, A LESSER TAX THAN WHAT WAS JUST, HAS BEEN IMPOSED. G) THE POWER OF TH ENTITLED TO EXAMINE ANY OTHER RECORDS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY HIM AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EVEN THOSE EVENTS WHICH AROSE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. 10.1. NOW WE EXAMINE THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (DELHI HIGH COURT ) IT WAS HELD THAT REVISIONARY POWER U/S 263 IS CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX WHEN AN ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, BUT ORDERS WHICH ARE PASSED A FTER INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION ON THE QUESTION/ISSUE ARE NOT PER SE OR NORMALLY TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE THE REVISIONARY AUTHORITY FEELS AND OPINES THAT FURTHER INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION WAS REQUIRED OR DEEPER OR FURTHER SCRUTINY SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN. INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD343 ITR 329 (DELHI) REVENUE DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. S. 263 HAS BEEN ENACTED EXERCISE POWER OF REVISION AND REVISE ANY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF TWO CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED. FIRSTLY, THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED SHOULD BE ERRONEOUS AND SECONDLY, IT SHOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EXPRESSION 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE' IS OF WIDE IMPORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO MERELY LOSS OF TAX. THE TERM 'ERRONEOUS' MEANS A WRONG/INCORRECT DECISION DEVIATING FROM LAW. THIS EXPRESSION POSTULATES AN ERROR WHI UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOTH AN INVESTIGATOR AND AN ADJUDICATOR. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AN ADJUDICATOR DECIDES A QUESTION OR ASPECT AND MAKES A WRONG ASSESSMENT WHICH IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, IT CAN BE CORRECTE POWER. AS AN INVESTIGATOR, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INVESTIGATE THE FACTS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED AND VERIFIED TO COMPUTE THE TAXABLE INCOME. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILS TO CONDUCT TH 'ERRONEOUS' INCLUDES FAILURE TO MAKE THE ENQUIRY. IN SUCH CASES, THE ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS BECAUSE ENQUIRY OR VERIFICATION HAS NOT BEEN MADE AND NOT BECAUSE A WRONG ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON MERITS THUS, IN CASES OF WRONG OPINION OR FINDING ON MERITS, THE CIT HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION AND HIMSELF DECIDE THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, BY CONDUCTING NECESSARY ENQUIRY, IF REQUIRED AND NECESSARY, BEFORE THE ORDER UNDER S. 263 IS PASSED. IN SUCH CASES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL BE ERRONEOUS BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE SAID FINDING MUST BE RECORDED. CIT CANNOT REMAND THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE FINDINGS RECORDED ARE ERRONEOUS. INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT NOT LACK OF ENQUIRY, AGAIN THE CIT MUST GIVE AND RECORD A FINDING THAT THE ORDER/INQUIRY MADE IS ERRONEOUS. THIS CAN HAPPEN IF AN ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION 27 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD F) WHETHER THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND BEFORE ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN BE SEEN; THAT IF THERE WAS AN INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SEC.263 MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER; THAT IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY THAT SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE OPEN; THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY; THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE ON AN INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION, A LESSER TAX THAN WHAT WAS JUST, HAS BEEN IMPOSED. G) THE POWER OF TH E COMMISSIONER UNDER SEC.263 (1) IS NOT COMMISSIONER IS ENTITLED TO EXAMINE ANY OTHER RECORDS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY HIM AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EVEN THOSE EVENTS WHICH AROSE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (DELHI HIGH COURT ) IT WAS HELD THAT REVISIONARY POWER U/S 263 IS CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR OF ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ORDERS WHICH ARE PASSED WITHOUT INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION ARE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, BUT ORDERS WHICH ARE FTER INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION ON THE QUESTION/ISSUE ARE NOT PER SE OR NORMALLY TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE THE REVISIONARY AUTHORITY FEELS AND OPINES THAT FURTHER INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION WAS REQUIRED OR DEEPER OR FURTHER SCRUTINY SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN. INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD343 ITR 329 (DELHI) REVENUE DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. S. 263 HAS BEEN ENACTED TO EMPOWER THE CIT TO EXERCISE POWER OF REVISION AND REVISE ANY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF TWO CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED. FIRSTLY, THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED SHOULD BE ERRONEOUS AND SECONDLY, IT SHOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. THE EXPRESSION 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE' IS OF WIDE IMPORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO MERELY LOSS OF TAX. THE TERM 'ERRONEOUS' MEANS A WRONG/INCORRECT DECISION DEVIATING FROM LAW. THIS EXPRESSION POSTULATES AN ERROR WHI CH MAKES AN ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOTH AN INVESTIGATOR AND AN ADJUDICATOR. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AN ADJUDICATOR DECIDES A QUESTION OR ASPECT AND MAKES A WRONG ASSESSMENT WHICH IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, IT CAN BE CORRECTE D BY THE COMMISSIONER IN EXERCISE OF REVISIONARY POWER. AS AN INVESTIGATOR, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INVESTIGATE THE FACTS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED AND VERIFIED TO COMPUTE THE TAXABLE INCOME. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILS TO CONDUCT TH E SAID INVESTIGATION, HE COMMITS AN ERROR AND THE WORD 'ERRONEOUS' INCLUDES FAILURE TO MAKE THE ENQUIRY. IN SUCH CASES, THE ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS BECAUSE ENQUIRY OR VERIFICATION HAS NOT BEEN MADE AND NOT BECAUSE A WRONG ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON MERITS . THUS, IN CASES OF WRONG OPINION OR FINDING ON MERITS, THE CIT HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION AND HIMSELF DECIDE THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, BY CONDUCTING NECESSARY ENQUIRY, IF REQUIRED AND NECESSARY, BEFORE THE ORDER UNDER S. 263 IS PASSED. IN SUCH CASES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL BE ERRONEOUS BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE SAID FINDING MUST BE RECORDED. CIT CANNOT REMAND THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE FINDINGS RECORDED ARE ERRONEOUS. IN C ASES WHERE THERE IS INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT NOT LACK OF ENQUIRY, AGAIN THE CIT MUST GIVE AND RECORD A FINDING THAT THE ORDER/INQUIRY MADE IS ERRONEOUS. THIS CAN HAPPEN IF AN ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . F) WHETHER THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND BEFORE ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN BE SEEN; THAT IF THERE WAS AN INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SEC.263 MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER; THAT IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE OPEN; THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE ON AN INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION, A E COMMISSIONER UNDER SEC.263 (1) IS NOT COMMISSIONER IS ENTITLED TO EXAMINE ANY OTHER RECORDS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY HIM AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EVEN THOSE EVENTS WHICH AROSE THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS . :- IT WAS HELD THAT REVISIONARY POWER U/S 263 IS CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR OF ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO ORDERS WHICH ARE PASSED WITHOUT INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION ARE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, BUT ORDERS WHICH ARE FTER INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION ON THE QUESTION/ISSUE ARE NOT PER SE OR NORMALLY TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE THE REVISIONARY AUTHORITY FEELS AND OPINES THAT FURTHER INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION WAS REQUIRED OR DEEPER OR REVENUE DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AGAINST AN TO EMPOWER THE CIT TO EXERCISE POWER OF REVISION AND REVISE ANY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF TWO CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED. FIRSTLY, THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED SHOULD BE EREST OF THE REVENUE. THE EXPRESSION 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE' IS OF WIDE IMPORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO MERELY LOSS OF TAX. THE TERM 'ERRONEOUS' MEANS A WRONG/INCORRECT DECISION CH MAKES AN ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOTH AN INVESTIGATOR AND AN ADJUDICATOR. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AN ADJUDICATOR DECIDES A QUESTION OR ASPECT AND MAKES A WRONG ASSESSMENT WHICH IS D BY THE COMMISSIONER IN EXERCISE OF REVISIONARY POWER. AS AN INVESTIGATOR, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INVESTIGATE THE FACTS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED AND VERIFIED TO COMPUTE THE TAXABLE INCOME. IF THE ASSESSING E SAID INVESTIGATION, HE COMMITS AN ERROR AND THE WORD 'ERRONEOUS' INCLUDES FAILURE TO MAKE THE ENQUIRY. IN SUCH CASES, THE ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS BECAUSE ENQUIRY OR VERIFICATION HAS NOT BEEN MADE AND NOT BECAUSE A WRONG THUS, IN CASES OF WRONG OPINION OR FINDING ON MERITS, THE CIT HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION AND HIMSELF DECIDE THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, BY CONDUCTING NECESSARY ENQUIRY, IF REQUIRED AND NECESSARY, BEFORE THE ORDER UNDER S. 263 IS PASSED. IN SUCH CASES, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL BE ERRONEOUS BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE SAID FINDING MUST BE RECORDED. CIT CANNOT REMAND THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING ASES WHERE THERE IS INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT NOT LACK OF ENQUIRY, AGAIN THE CIT MUST GIVE AND RECORD A FINDING THAT THE ORDER/INQUIRY MADE IS ERRONEOUS. THIS CAN HAPPEN IF AN ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION IS CONDUCTED BY THE CIT AND HE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH AND SH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MAKING THE ORDER UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN SOME CASES POSSIBLY THOUGH RARELY, THE CIT CAN ALSO SHOW AND ESTABLISH THAT THE FACTS ON RECORD OR INFERENCES DRAWN FROM FACTS ON RECORD PER SE BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRONEOUSLY NOT UNDERTAKEN THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE SAID FINDING MUST BE CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS AND NOT DEBATABLE. A FRESH DECISION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. REQUIREMENT WHICH MUST BE SATISFIED FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 OF THE ACT. IN SUCH MATTERS, TO REMAND THE MATTE THE CIT HAS NOT EXAMINED AND DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ASPECT/QUESTION. THIS DISTINCTION MUST BE KEPT IN MIND BY THE CIT WHILE EX OF THE ACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. MOST CASES OF ALLEGED 'INADEQUATE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO HAD CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES AND HAD ACTED AS AN INVESTIGATOR, IS ERRONEOUS, WITHOUT CIT CONDUCTING VERIFICATION/INQUIRY. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE OR MAY NOT BE WRONG. CIT CANNOT DIRECT RECONSIDERATION ON THIS GROUND BUT ONLY WHEN THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS. THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. AN ORDER IS NOT ERRONEOUS, UNLESS THE CIT HOLD AND RECORDS REASONS WHY IT IS ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER WILL NOT BECOME ERRONEOUS BECAUSE ON REMIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DECIDE THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. THEREFORE CIT MUST AFTER RECORDING REASONS HOLD THAT THE ORDER I ERRONEOUS. THE JURISDICTIONAL PRECONDITION STIPULATED IS THAT THE CIT MUST COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE MATERIAL WHICH THE CIT CAN RELY INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE RECORD AS IT STAND WHEN THE ORDER IN QUESTION WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT ALSO THE RECORD AS IT STANDS AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY THE CIT. NOTHING BARS/PROHIBITS THE CIT FROM COLLECTING AND RELYING UPON NEW/ADDITIONAL MATERIAL/EVIDENCE TO SHOW AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. J. L. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD. 366 ITR AS REGARD THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CAN BE EXERCISED EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE CASE OF CIT VS. M. M. KHAMBHATWALA WAS NOT APPLICABLE. THE OBSERVATION THAT THE COM MISSIONER CAN EXERCISE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT EVEN IN A CASE WERE THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE WAS A MERE PASSING REMARK WHICH IS AGAIN CONTRARY TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE APEX COURT IN THECASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. & MAX INDIA LTD. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IS ERRONEOUS NOR THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT CASE CAN BE SET ASIDE IN REVISION. IT HAS TO BE SHOWN UNMISTAKABLY THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE ANYTHING SHORT OF THAT WOULD NOT CLOTHE THE CIT WITH JURISDICTION TO EXERCISE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. CIT VS. M. M. KHAMBHATWALA REPORTED IN 198 ITR 144; CIT VS. RALSON INDUSTRIES LTD. REPORTED IN 288 ITR 322 (SC), NOT APPLI CO. LTD. V. CIT REPORTED IN 243 ITR 83, RELIED ON. (PARA 72) AS REGARD THE THIRD QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, IT WAS HELD THAT THE COURT HAS TO START THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS REGULARLY PASSED. THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO ANSWER 17 QUESTIONS AND TO FILE DOCUMENTS IN REGARD THERETO. IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT QUESTIONS RAISED BY HIM DID NOT REQUIRE APPLICATION OF MIND. WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY HIM IN THE ANNEXURE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FORMULATED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO EX FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN HIS INCOME AND TO LEVY APPROPRIATE TAX ON THAT BASIS. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED THAT THE RETURN, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, HE WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO JU THE TOP OF THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HIS ORDER DATED 28 28 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD IS CONDUCTED BY THE CIT AND HE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH AND SH OW THE ERROR OR MISTAKE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MAKING THE ORDER UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN SOME CASES POSSIBLY THOUGH RARELY, THE CIT CAN ALSO SHOW AND ESTABLISH THAT THE FACTS ON RECORD OR INFERENCES DRAWN FROM FACTS ON RECORD PER SE JUSTIFIED AND M ANDATED FURTHER ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRONEOUSLY NOT UNDERTAKEN THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE SAID FINDING MUST BE CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS AND NOT DEBATABLE. THE MATTER CANNOT BE REMITTED FOR A FRESH DECISION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT FURTHER ENQUIRIES WITHOUT A FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IS A CONDITION OR REQUIREMENT WHICH MUST BE SATISFIED FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 OF THE ACT. IN SUCH MATTERS, TO REMAND THE MATTE R/ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD IMPLY AND MEAN THE CIT HAS NOT EXAMINED AND DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ASPECT/QUESTION. THIS DISTINCTION MUST BE KEPT IN MIND BY THE CIT WHILE EX ERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 OF THE ACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. MOST CASES OF ALLEGED 'INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION', IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO HAD CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES AND HAD ACTED AS AN INVESTIGATOR, IS ERRONEOUS, WITHOUT CIT CONDUCTING VERIFICATION/INQUIRY. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT BE WRONG. CIT CANNOT DIRECT RECONSIDERATION ON THIS GROUND BUT ONLY WHEN THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER OF REMIT CANNOT BE PASSED BY THE CIT TO ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS. THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. AN NOT ERRONEOUS, UNLESS THE CIT HOLD AND RECORDS REASONS WHY IT IS ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER WILL NOT BECOME ERRONEOUS BECAUSE ON REMIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DECIDE THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. THEREFORE CIT MUST AFTER RECORDING REASONS HOLD THAT THE ORDER I ERRONEOUS. THE JURISDICTIONAL PRECONDITION STIPULATED IS THAT THE CIT MUST COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE MATERIAL WHICH THE CIT CAN RELY INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE RECORD AS IT STAND WHEN THE ORDER IN QUESTION WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT ALSO THE RECORD AS IT STANDS AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY THE CIT. NOTHING BARS/PROHIBITS THE CIT FROM COLLECTING AND RELYING UPON NEW/ADDITIONAL MATERIAL/EVIDENCE TO SHOW AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. J. L. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD. 366 ITR 593 AS REGARD THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CAN BE EXERCISED EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE CASE OF CIT VS. M. M. KHAMBHATWALA WAS NOT APPLICABLE. THE OBSERVATION THAT THE MISSIONER CAN EXERCISE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT EVEN IN A CASE WERE THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE WAS A MERE PASSING REMARK WHICH IS AGAIN CONTRARY TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE APEX COURT IN THECASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. & MAX INDIA LTD. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IS ERRONEOUS NOR THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT CASE CAN BE SET ASIDE IN REVISION. IT HAS TO BE SHOWN UNMISTAKABLY THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS UNSUSTAINABLE. ANYTHING SHORT OF THAT WOULD NOT CLOTHE THE CIT WITH JURISDICTION TO EXERCISE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. CIT VS. M. M. KHAMBHATWALA REPORTED IN 198 ITR 144; CIT VS. RALSON INDUSTRIES LTD. REPORTED IN 288 ITR 322 (SC), NOT APPLI CABLE; MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT REPORTED IN 243 ITR 83, RELIED ON. AS REGARD THE THIRD QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, IT WAS HELD THAT THE COURT HAS TO START THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS REGULARLY PASSED. THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO ANSWER 17 QUESTIONS AND TO FILE DOCUMENTS IN REGARD THERETO. IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT QUESTIONS RAISED BY HIM DID NOT REQUIRE APPLICATION OF MIND. WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY HIM IN THE ANNEXURE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FORMULATED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO EX AMINE THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN HIS INCOME AND TO LEVY APPROPRIATE TAX ON THAT BASIS. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED THAT THE RETURN, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, HE WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO JU STIFY AS TO WHY WAS HE SATISFIED. ON THE TOP OF THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HIS ORDER DATED 28 TH MARCH, 2008 DID NOT ADVERSELY ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . OW THE ERROR OR MISTAKE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MAKING THE ORDER UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN SOME CASES POSSIBLY THOUGH RARELY, THE CIT CAN ALSO SHOW AND ESTABLISH THAT THE FACTS ON RECORD OR INFERENCES ANDATED FURTHER ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRONEOUSLY NOT UNDERTAKEN THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE SAID THE MATTER CANNOT BE REMITTED FOR TO CONDUCT FURTHER ENQUIRIES WITHOUT A FINDING FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IS A CONDITION OR REQUIREMENT WHICH MUST BE SATISFIED FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 OF THE ACT. IN R/ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD IMPLY AND MEAN THE CIT HAS NOT EXAMINED AND DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT HAS ERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 OF THE ACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN INVESTIGATION', IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO HAD CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES AND HAD ACTED AS AN INVESTIGATOR, IS ERRONEOUS, WITHOUT CIT CONDUCTING VERIFICATION/INQUIRY. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT BE WRONG. CIT CANNOT DIRECT RECONSIDERATION ON THIS GROUND BUT ONLY AN ORDER OF REMIT CANNOT BE PASSED BY THE CIT TO ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS. THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. AN NOT ERRONEOUS, UNLESS THE CIT HOLD AND RECORDS REASONS WHY IT IS ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER WILL NOT BECOME ERRONEOUS BECAUSE ON REMIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DECIDE THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. THEREFORE CIT MUST AFTER RECORDING REASONS HOLD THAT THE ORDER I S ERRONEOUS. THE JURISDICTIONAL PRECONDITION STIPULATED IS THAT THE CIT MUST COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE MATERIAL WHICH THE CIT CAN RELY INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE RECORD AS IT STAND S AT THE TIME WHEN THE ORDER IN QUESTION WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT ALSO THE RECORD AS IT STANDS AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY THE CIT. NOTHING BARS/PROHIBITS THE CIT FROM COLLECTING AND RELYING UPON NEW/ADDITIONAL MATERIAL/EVIDENCE TO SHOW AN D STATE THAT THE AS REGARD THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CAN BE EXERCISED EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE CASE OF CIT VS. M. M. KHAMBHATWALA WAS NOT APPLICABLE. THE OBSERVATION THAT THE MISSIONER CAN EXERCISE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT EVEN IN A CASE WERE THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE WAS A MERE PASSING REMARK WHICH IS AGAIN CONTRARY TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE APEX COURT IN THECASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. & MAX INDIA LTD. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IS ERRONEOUS NOR THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT CASE CAN BE SET ASIDE IN REVISION. IT R IS UNSUSTAINABLE. ANYTHING SHORT OF THAT WOULD NOT CLOTHE THE CIT WITH JURISDICTION TO EXERCISE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. CIT VS. M. M. KHAMBHATWALA REPORTED IN 198 ITR 144; CIT VS. CABLE; MALABAR INDUSTRIAL AS REGARD THE THIRD QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, IT WAS HELD THAT THE COURT HAS TO START WITH THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS REGULARLY PASSED. THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO ANSWER 17 QUESTIONS AND TO FILE DOCUMENTS IN REGARD THERETO. IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT THE 17 QUESTIONS RAISED BY HIM DID NOT REQUIRE APPLICATION OF MIND. WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY HIM IN THE ANNEXURE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT AMINE THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN HIS INCOME AND TO LEVY APPROPRIATE TAX ON THAT BASIS. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED THAT THE RETURN, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS IN STIFY AS TO WHY WAS HE SATISFIED. ON MARCH, 2008 DID NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ANY RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY CIVIL RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE PREJUDICED. HE WAS AS SUCH UNDER NO OBLIGATION IN LAW THEREAFTER THE MATTER WAS HEARD FROM TIME TO TIME COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IS NOT SHOWN BY THE REVENUE TO BE ERRONEOUS AND WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BOTH BY THE TRIBUN US TO BE A POSSIBLE VIEW, STRENGTHENS THE PRESUMPTION UNDER CLAUSE (E) OF SECTION 114 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT. A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE, ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID PRESUMPTION, IS THUS CONVERTED INTO A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE FACT THAT THE ORDER APPLICATION OF MIND. MEERUT ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. C.I.T., ITA NO. 116 /COCH/ 2012; CIT VS. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD., 341 ITR 293 (KARNATAKA); S.N. MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. DOSHI VS. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; HINDUSTHAN TIN WORKS LTD. VS. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (DEL), DISTINGUISHED. (PARAS 90-92, 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) A REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF S. 263 SHOWS THAT JURISDICTION THEREUNDER CAN BE EXERCISED IF THE CIT FINDS THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. MERE AUDIT OBJECTION AND MERELY BECAUSE A DIFFERENT VIEW COULD B OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE JURISDICTION COULD BE EXERCISED IF THE CIT WAS SATISFIED THAT THE BASIS FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION EXISTED. NO RIGID RULE COULD BE L AID DOWN ABOUT THE SITUATION WHEN THE JURISDICTION CAN BE EXERCISED. WHETHER SATISFACTION OF THE CIT FOR EXERCISING JURISDICTION WAS CALLED FOR OR NOT, HAS TO BE DECIDED HAVING REGARD TO A GIVEN FACT SITUATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD TH CONSIDERATION, A SUM OF RS. 1 LAKH WAS TO BE RECEIVED FOR SALE OF PERMIT. IF THAT IS SO, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO AND NO CASE WAS MADE OUT FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. OMKAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) NECESSARILY HOLD THAT THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONARY POWER BY THE LD. PR. CIT, U/S 263 OF THE ACT, VIDE ORDER DT. 11/03/2019, IS BAD IN LAW. DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT, IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 31/03/2016 AND AFTER DETAILED EXAMINATION OF WITNESS AND EVIDENCE HAS TAKEN A LEGAL AND POSSIBLE VIEW. THERE IS NO ERROR TO THE EXTENT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE IN THE OFFICER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT ON 13/05/2016. SAME AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE SD/- [ABY T. VARKEY] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 10.02.2021 {SC SPS} 29 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD AFFECT ANY RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY CIVIL RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE PREJUDICED. HE WAS AS SUCH UNDER NO OBLIGATION IN LAW TO GIVE REASONS. THE FACT, THAT ALL REQUISITE PAPERS WERE SUMMONED AND THEREAFTER THE MATTER WAS HEARD FROM TIME TO TIME COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IS NOT SHOWN BY THE REVENUE TO BE ERRONEOUS AND WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BOTH BY THE TRIBUN US TO BE A POSSIBLE VIEW, STRENGTHENS THE PRESUMPTION UNDER CLAUSE (E) OF SECTION 114 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT. A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE, ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID PRESUMPTION, IS THUS CONVERTED INTO A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE FACT THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. MEERUT ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. C.I.T., ITA NO. 116 /COCH/ 2012; CIT VS. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD., 341 ITR 293 (KARNATAKA); S.N. MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1990 SC A. DOSHI VS. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; HINDUSTHAN TIN WORKS LTD. VS. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (DEL), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) A REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF S. 263 SHOWS THAT JURISDICTION THEREUNDER CAN BE EXERCISED IF THE CIT FINDS THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. MERE AUDIT OBJECTION AND MERELY BECAUSE A DIFFERENT VIEW COULD B E TAKEN, WERE NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE JURISDICTION COULD BE EXERCISED IF THE CIT WAS SATISFIED THAT THE BASIS FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION EXISTED. NO RIGID RULE COULD AID DOWN ABOUT THE SITUATION WHEN THE JURISDICTION CAN BE EXERCISED. WHETHER SATISFACTION OF THE CIT FOR EXERCISING JURISDICTION WAS CALLED FOR OR NOT, HAS TO BE DECIDED HAVING REGARD TO A GIVEN FACT SITUATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THAT OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION, A SUM OF RS. 1 LAKH WAS TO BE RECEIVED FOR SALE OF PERMIT. IF THAT IS SO, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO AND NO CASE WAS MADE OUT FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263. VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND SPECIFICALLY APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE M/S. AMRITRASHI INFRA PRIVATE LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF OMKAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY HOLD THAT THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONARY POWER BY THE LD. PR. CIT, U/S 263 OF THE ACT, VIDE ORDER DT. 11/03/2019, IS BAD IN LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOL DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT, IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 31/03/2016 AND AFTER DETAILED EXAMINATION OF WITNESS AND EVIDENCE HAS TAKEN A LEGAL AND POSSIBLE VIEW. THERE IS NO ERROR TO THE EXTENT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT ON 13/05/2016. HENCE WE QUASH THE SAME AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE 10 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021. [J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . AFFECT ANY RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY CIVIL RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE PREJUDICED. HE WAS AS SUCH TO GIVE REASONS. THE FACT, THAT ALL REQUISITE PAPERS WERE SUMMONED AND THEREAFTER THE MATTER WAS HEARD FROM TIME TO TIME COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IS NOT SHOWN BY THE REVENUE TO BE ERRONEOUS AND WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BOTH BY THE TRIBUN AL AS ALSO BY US TO BE A POSSIBLE VIEW, STRENGTHENS THE PRESUMPTION UNDER CLAUSE (E) OF SECTION 114 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT. A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE, ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID PRESUMPTION, IS THUS CONVERTED WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. MEERUT ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. C.I.T., ITA NO. 116 /COCH/ 2012; CIT VS. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD., 341 ITR 293 (KARNATAKA); S.N. MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1990 SC A. DOSHI VS. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; HINDUSTHAN TIN WORKS LTD. VS. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (DEL), A REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF S. 263 SHOWS THAT JURISDICTION THEREUNDER CAN BE EXERCISED IF THE CIT FINDS THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. MERE AUDIT E TAKEN, WERE NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE JURISDICTION COULD BE EXERCISED IF THE CIT WAS SATISFIED THAT THE BASIS FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION EXISTED. NO RIGID RULE COULD AID DOWN ABOUT THE SITUATION WHEN THE JURISDICTION CAN BE EXERCISED. WHETHER SATISFACTION OF THE CIT FOR EXERCISING JURISDICTION WAS CALLED FOR OR NOT, HAS TO BE DECIDED HAVING REGARD TO A GIVEN FACT AT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THAT OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION, A SUM OF RS. 1 LAKH WAS TO BE RECEIVED FOR SALE OF PERMIT. IF THAT IS SO, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO AND NO CASE WAS MADE OUT FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263. VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN AND SPECIFICALLY APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE AND IN THE CASE OF M/S. TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY HOLD THAT THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONARY POWER BY THE LD. PR. CIT, U/S 263 OF THE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOL LOWED ALL THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PR. CIT, IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 31/03/2016 AND AFTER DETAILED EXAMINATION OF WITNESS AND EVIDENCE HAS TAKEN A LEGAL AND POSSIBLE VIEW. THERE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING HENCE WE QUASH THE SD/- [J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. 1B, ELGIN ROAD KOLKATA 700 020 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 12(3), KOLKATA 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 30 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD 12(3), KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 800/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES