9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present case, the ld Assessing Officer has made the due enquiry by examining the directors of the subscribing companies. Therefore, in the present case the ld Assessing Officer also examined the persons behind the company who take the decisions, controlled and managed them. On such examination also the fact of confirmation of investment was reiterated. Therefore, in view of the above distinguishing facts, the reliance by the ld DR on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court does not in case of Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT [2016 (5) TMI 801 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] help the case of Revenue. For the reasons given herein above we quash the order of the ld CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act on 17.02.2017. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income on 10.12.2013 declaring income of ₹ 4167120/-. After the discussion assessment u/s 153A(1)(b)of the Act was passed on 13.06.2014 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Faridabad. 5. Subsequently, on 08.11.2016 the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon issued show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act for the impugned assessment order as under:- "The Principal Officer, M/s Globus Project Pvt. Ltd., SCO-169-170, Ground Floor Sector 8-C, Madya Marg, Chandigarh Subject:- Show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act, 1961 in the case of M/s. Goobus Projects Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2012-13-reg] 1. The search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 04.07.2012. Notice u/s l53A(l)(a) of the Act was issued on 29.11.2013 which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee in response to the above notice filed his return of income on 10.10.2013 declaring returned income of ₹ 41,67,120/- and assessment u/s 153A(l)(b) of the i.T. Act was made vide order dated 13.06.2014 and income of the assessee was accepted at ₹ 41,67,120/-. 2. On perusal of the balance-sheet and record of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are as under:- S.No. Name & address of the Company FY. Amount given as capital advances 1 M/s KDK Food Grains Pvt Ltd., F-20/B, 2nd floor, Gali No. 29, Gurudwara Rd., Madhy Vihar, New Delhi 2011-12 12,50,00,000/- 2 M/s leisure Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 27 Kilokari Village Opposite, Thaper Business Center., New Delhi 2011-12 12,50,00,000/- 3 M/s Maonmay food & Bev. Pvt Ltd., F-2Q/B, 2nd floor, Gali No. 29, Gurudwara Rd,, Madhy Vihar, New Delhi 2011-12 9,00,00,000/- 4 M/s SPB Propcon Pvt Ltd., 27 Kilokari Village Opposite, Thaper Business Center, New Delhi 2011-12 13,00,00,000/- S M/s Strap Creation Pvt Ltd., 106 Dua Business Center, Main Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi 2011-12 10,00,00,000/- 6 M/s Syns Construction Pvt Ltd., A-69, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 11,00,00,000/- Sh. Sanjay Singhal stated that ₹ 68 crores were given to the above companies by BPSL as advances. In this case also, BPSL has made payments to paper companies namely M/s KDK Food Grains Pvt Ltd., M/s Leiztirc Bulldcon Pvt. Ltd., M/s Manomay Food': / Beverages Pvt Ltd., M/s SPB Propcon Pvt Ltd., M/s Strap Creation Pvt. Ltd., M/s Syns Construction Pvt. Ltd. for siphoning off funds in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d modus operandi, it appears that cash paid by Bestech group for taking bogus share capital/ premium accommodation entries through paper entries has been given equal amount of BPSL group. However, issue may be investigated further before finalizing the assessment proceedings. 4. it is seen that during the assessment proceedings, the issue of creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions of the investor companies from whom the assessee company has received share capital has not been thoroughly examined/ investigated which is also evident from the report dated 17.04.2015 of DDIT(Inv.}-I, Faridabad. Merely filing confirmations/PAN Nos. etc. does not prove the genuineness & creditworthiness of the investors. 5. The order of the Assessing Officer in therefore erroneous & prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, yoii are hereby given a opportunity to show cause why Asstt. Order dated 30.05.2014 be not revised. 7. You may appeal personally or thorough authorised representative on 25.11.2016 6. The assessee submitted its replies dated an undated letter, 27.01.2017 and 17.02.2017, which are all placed at, page NO. 146 to 157 of the pap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 133(6) of Income Tax Act at the given address of share applicant companies. 6. Alter thorough verification and investigation, the Assessing officer was fully satisfied about the genuineness of the above credits in the books of accounts of the assessee company. Therefore, she did not made any addition u/s 68 of the Act while framing assessment order. Submission Provisions of Section 263 of the Act Sir, Section 263 of the Income Tax Act states - " (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, Including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. Explanation 1.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,- (a) ………& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83 and has propounded the following broader principle to judge the action of CIT taken under section 263 as follows: (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. (ii) Sec. 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the AO and it was only when an order is erroneous then the section will be attracted. (iii) An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will suffice the requirement of order being erroneous. (iv) if the order is passed without application of mind, such order will fall under the category of erroneous order. (v) Every loss of revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and if the AO has adopted one of the courses permissible under law or where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree. It cannot be treated as an erroneous order, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable under law. (vi) If while making the assessment, the AO examines the accounts, makes enquiries, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he share holder companies have deposed and have filed all such documents which were called for or could be filed in support of said share application money besides appearing in person and answering all the questions raised during the course of recording of statement on oath U/s 131 by the learned Assessing Officer to her satisfaction. The director of all the share applicant companies left the office of the learned assessing officer, only, after giving answers to all the questions raised and after providing all the documents asked for, during the course of recording of statement and no further question/ requisition of document was asked / sought by the learned assessing officer from the directors. The assessee applied for and obtained copy of statements recorded and documents filed by the directors of these companies u/s 131 of the Act during assessment proceedings. The copy of the same is being submitted herewith for your honor‟s kind perusal and records. From the above facts, it is evident that the assessing officer had made adequate / requisite inquiries / verification to satisfy herself about genuineness of transactions and framed assessment order, only, after being ful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous. Thus, present case does not fulfill the basic condition of assessment order being erroneous for initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. It is therefore prayed that show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act may please be dropped. Without prejudice to above submission, we further submit that on merits also, no disallowance u/s 68 of the Act is warranted in the case of the assessee company on the following grounds: 1. That as mentioned in Para 3 of show cause notice, Mr. Sanjay Singhal, CMD of BPSL has accepted the fact that BPSL has given the amounts mentioned in the notice to Share Applicants Companies and these are still outstanding in the bocks as advance. He confirmed these payments to share applicant companies and never admitted that these payments are not genuine. The Show Cause Notice also states that he admitted for disallowance of interest on these advances given. It is worth mentioning here that he never admitted to the disallowance of the whole advances but agreed to disallowance of interest attributable to these advances only. Thus, in his statement, Mr. Sanjay Singhal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtificate of Incorporation of Share Applicant Copy Share Application Form PAN of Share Applicant Address of the Share Applicant Confirmation of Applicant Acknowledgement of IT Return for AY 2011- 12 PAN of Share Applicant Mode of Payment i.e. through Crossed Account Payee Cheque Copy of Bank Statement of Applicant Copy of Acknowledgement of IT Return for AY 11-12 Copy of Board Resolution passed by Share Applicant for investment in assessee company Confirmation of Applicant which also specify the sources of investment Copy of Bank Statement of Applicant 5 Allotment Letter and Delivery of Shares Balance Sheet of Share Applicant Company Sir, it is pertinent to mention here that once all the share applicant companies has confirmed the fact of giving the share capital / share application money, whatever addition which the learned AO may think fit, should have been made only in the hands of share applicant companies and not the receiver of the money (assessee company) as per the principles laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. LOVELY EXPORTS PVT.LTD {(2008) 216 CTR 195) wherein it was held that - "If the share application money is received by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urts, few of them is cited hereunder: CIT v.s Steller Investment Ltd (251 ITR 263) (SC) Achal Investment Ltd vs CIT (268 ITR 211) (Del) DCIT.vs Esteem Towers (P) Ltd. (99 TTJ 472) (Del) CIT vs Dolphin Canpack Ltd (204 CTR 50) (Del) CIT vs Giocom Impex (P) Ltd. (205 CTR 571) (Del) CIT vs Gangaur Investment Ltd. (335 ITR 359) (Del) CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment (P)Ltd. (330 ITR 298)(Del) CIT vs Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 361 ITR 10 (Del) CIT vs Expo Global India Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 147 (Del) Sir, as regards the credit worthiness, it is submitted that appellant has submitted tne confirmation, bank account, Balance Sheet and income tax return of the applicant companies before the learned assessing officer. The appellant was not required to prove the source of the source as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull (87 ITR 349)(SC). Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Value Capital Services Ltd. (307 ITR 334) have held that the additional burden lay on the revenue to show that even if the applicant does not have means to make the investment in shares, the investment has emanated from the cof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the interest of justice and oblige." b. Letter dated 27/1/2017 ( Page nO 155 to 156 of the paper book ) "27th January 2017 The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax - Central, Gurgaon, Haryana. Respected Sir, Re:- Reply to Show Cause Notice u/s 263 of Income Tax Act. 1961 M/s. Globus Projects Private Limited. Assessment Year 2012-13 In continuance of our earlier submission and without prejudice to the fact that the order passed by the learned assessing officer is not erroneous for invoking provisions of section 263 of the act, we respectfully submit that as mentioned in Para 3 of show cause notice, Mr. Sanjay Singhal, CMD of BPSL has accepted the fact that BPSL has given the amounts mentioned in the notice to Share Applicants Companies and these are still outstanding in the books as advance. In other words, he accepted and confirmed the fact that payments made by BPSL to share applicant companies (the companies who has paid share application money to assessee company) are genuine. It is also evident from the fact that all these advances have been duly repaid back by these share applicant companies to BPSL in subsequent period. The confirmation of account from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the order passed by the learned assessing officer is not erroneous for invoking provisions of section 263 of the act, we respectfully submit that all the advances received by share applicant companies (the companies who has paid share application money to assessee company) have been duly repaid back to Bhusan Power & Steel Ltd. in subsequent period. All the confirmations of account from Bhusan Power & Steels Ltd. reflecting such repayment have already been submitted to your goodself with our submission dated 27.01.2017. Confirmation of account from Bhusan Power & Steel Ltd. reflecting such repayment from Manomay Foods & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. is submitted herewith for your kind verification and records. Thus, Sir, In the present case, the assessee company has duly discharged onus cast on it to prove identity of shareholders, creditworthiness of the shareholder and1* genuineness of transaction by providing requisite proofs / documents. The Learned Assessing officer has also independently verified the Identity, Creditworthiness of share applicant and genuineness of transactions by independently calling the directors of the companies u/s 131 and/or calling information U/s 133(6) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. M/s SPB Propcon Pvt. Ltd. M/s Strap Creation Pvt. Ltd., M/s Syns Construction Pvt. Ltd. was confronted to Sh. Sanjay Singhal, CMD of BPSL. Sh. Sanjay Singhal could not give any specific detail and was also not able to establish the genuineness of existence of above mentioned companies. The amounts given to the above companies are outstanding in the books as advances. The details of advances given are as under:- S.No. Name & address of the Company F.Y. Amount given as capital advances 1 M/s KDK Food Grains Pvt. Ltd., F-20/B, 2nd floor, Gali No. 29, Gurudwara Rd., MadhyVihar, New Delhi 2011-12 12,50,00,000/- 2 M/s Leisure Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 27 Kilokari Village Opposite, Thaper Business Center, New Delhi 2011-12 12,50,00,000/- 3 M/s Maonmay food & Bev. Pvt. Ltd., F-20/B, 2nd floor, Gali No. 29, Gurudwara Rd., MadhyVihar, New Delhi 2011 - 12 9,00,00,000/- 4 M/s SPB Propcon Pvt Ltd., 27 Kilokari Village Opposite, Thaper Business Center, New Delhi 2011-12 13,00,00,000/- 5 M/s Strap Creation Pvt Ltd., 106 Dua Business Center, Main Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi 2011-12 10,00,00,000/- 6 M/s Syns Construction Pvt Ltd., A-69, Laxmi Nagar, Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts of BPSL. From the above discussion on modus operandi and financial credentials of above entities to which payments were made, it is concluded that payments were made to these entities for siphoning offfunds from BPSL Payments made by BPSL to the above mentioned paper entities have finally been introduced in the entities ofBesiech Group in form of bogus share capital/premium. Thus, prima facie from the discussed modus operand'i, it appears that cash paid by Beslech group for taking bogus share capital/premium accommodation entries through paper entries has been given equal amount to BPSL group. However issue may be investigated further before finalizing the assessment proceedings." 3. A show cause notice was issued vide this office letter dated 08.11.2016 giving an opportunity to show cause why assessment order dated 13.06.2014 be not revised. The same is reproduced as under: (i) On perusal of the balance-sheet and record of the assessee for year under assessment, it was observed that assessee company have received share application money/share capital to the extent of ₹ 7,38,00,000/- from the three companies named as under:- (a) M/s Leisure Buildcon Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -12 12,50,00,000/- 2 M/s Leisure Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 27 Kilokari Village Opposite, Thaper Business Center, New Delhi 2011-12 12,50,00,000/- 3 M/s Maonmay food & Bev. Pvt. Ltd., F-20/B, 2nd floor, Gali No. 29, Gurudwara Rd., MadhyVihar, New 2011-12 9,00,00,000/- 4 Mi/s SPB Propcon Pvt Ltd., 27 Kilokari Village Opposite, Thaper 2011-12 13,00,00,000/- 5 M/s Strap Creation Pvt Ltd., 106 Dua Business Center, Main Vikas Marg, 2011-12 10,00,00,000/- 6 M/s Syns Construction Pvt Ltd., A-69, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 11,00,00,000/- Sh. Sanjay Singhal stated that ₹ 68 crores were given to the above companies by BPSL as advances. In this case also, BPSL has made payments to paper companies namely M/s KDK Food Grains Pvt. Ltd., M/s Leizure Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., M/s Manomay Foods & Beverages Pvt. Ltd., M/s SPB Propcon Pvt. Ltd., M/s Strap Creation Pvt. Ltd., M/s Syns Construction Pvt. Ltd. for siphoning off funds in the grab of making bogus purchases or for buying capital goods. From the analysis of 1TR and ROC data of the above mentioned companies, it is found that these companies are not doing any meaningful business activities and are existing only on papers. Summon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the assessment proceedings. " (iv) . It is seen that during the assessment proceedings, the issue of creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions of the investor companies from whom the assessee company has received share capital has not been thoroughly examined/ investigated which is also evident from the report dated 17.04.2015 of DDIT(Inv.)-I, Faridabad. Merely filing confirmations/PAN Nos. etc. does not prove the genuineness & creditworthiness of the investors. (v) . The order of the Assessing Officer in therefore erroneous & prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 4. Opportunities were given to the assessee from time to time. The assessee‟s main arguments have been that: (a) The assessee had discharged his onus by producing all evidences. (b) Sh. Sanjay Singhal CMD of BPSL never admitted to the disallowance of the whole advances but agreed to disallowance of interest claimed by BPSL which is attributable to these advances. (c) Advances by the share applicant companies who had received advances from BSPL have been repaid to BSPL. 5. The facts of the case have been considered: (a) The facts in respect of share application money/share ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eness/creditworthiness of the following three parties from whom share capital has been received * M/s KDK Food Grains (P) Ltd. ₹ 3,36,00,000/- * M/s Leisure Buildcon (P) Ltd. ₹ 2,31,00,000/- * M/s Maonmay Food & Bev. (P) Ltd. ₹ 1,7100.000/- The invocation of sec.263 is unsustainable for various mutually exclusive reasons One * During asstt., the A.O. deeply examined the receipt of share capital from above three companies * The A.O. called for the all relevant information from assessee, from parties u/s.133 (6) and also recorded statement of directors of all the 03 companies u/s. 131. * The exercise undertaken by the A.O. at asstt. stage is evident from following evidences which was furnished by the assessee as well as by the parties u/s. 133 (6) as well as statement recorded u/s. 131. KDK Food Grains (P) Ltd. ₹ 3,36,00,000/- * Query reg. share holdings vide para-22 of questionnaire dt.05.02.14 (3) Notice u/s.133 (6) dt.25.05.14 to KDK (8) * Reply to A.O. by assessee vide para-4 (giving details of documents furnished by the assessee to A.O.) (15) * Details of all shares allotted (21) * Board resolution dt.30.03.12 for allotm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transactions. * Statement of directors of all the 03 companies reconfirm these transactions. * The A.O. after verifying the documents/statement could not point out even a single discrepancy, hence accepted the receipt. * Thus, in this case, the A.O. carried out all the maximum possible inquiries/investigations for receipt of the share capital and noting more could had been done. * Sec.263 (1), expln. 2, clause (a) provides for an order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue when the order has been passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made, however in this case, all maximum possible inquiries and verification has been carried out. * It is neither a case of lack of inquiry and even not a case of inadequate inquiry. * It is interesting to note that in the impugned order u/s.263, the CIT did not mention the information collected by the A.O., investigation done u/s. 133 (6) and also the fact of statement being recorded, although this complete material and information was with him. * CIT, ignoring these important aspects / inquiries / investigation / statements by A.O., simplicitor gave a finding that the A.O. di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he basis of material/ DDIT report which was not in existence at the time of completion of original asstt. Three * Even otherwise, there is nothing adverse in DDIT report dt.17.04.15 so as to invoke sec.263, rather the said report supports the case of assessee * The DDIT report dt.17.04.15 in the case of Bhushan (3rd party) is abstracted in asstt. order (CIT Pg.1-4) * As per conclusion of DDIT report, Bhushan made payments to these 3 companies (and other companies also) which are paper entities, and these companies, introduced the said amount as bogus share capital (CIT - Top Para Pg.4) * However these observation/finding are totally incorrect as per the facts mentioned in the report on the basis of which facts, the conclusion has been derived in the DDIT report, which stands clear from following as mentioned in DDIT report itself * Sh. Sanjay Singhal, Director of Bhushan stated in his statement that the said amount was given by Bhushan to these companies (CIT Pg.2) * DDIT stated that Bhushan gave the money to these companies for making bogus purchases, (CIT Pg.2) * However this allegation of DDIT is wrong. The director of Bhushan in his statement clearly stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been paid against receipt of share capital (CIT Pg.8, Para - e) * Thus the directions of the CIT to re-examine the issue by A.O., in substance cannot be independently examined and adjudicated with independent view by the A.O. in view of clear otherwise findings of the CIT as given in Para - e. * Under the facts, when the CIT set aside the matter for re-examination, he should not give the findings as given in Para - e, which needs to be ex¬punched, in case the order u/s.263 is not quashed. * Seven The order under approval of addl. CIT is not to be taken as passed by assessing officer, hence cannot be revised * The Asstt. orders have been framed after approval from Addl. CIT U/s 153D. * Thus, the issue stands examined by AO and thereafter re - examined by Addl. CIT. * Sec. 263(1) provides that CIT can invoke Sec 263 for an order passed by assessing officer. * The word "assessing officer‟ has been defined in Sec. 2(1 A). He is the person who is vested with the powers of that of an Assessing officer who frames assessment order. * Thus, orders passed by Assessing officer within the meaning of Sec. 2(7A) can be subject to Sec. 263. * Thus, only the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, the order passed by him is erroneous. It was further stated that the page NO. 69 referred to by the ld DR is the bank statement which itself demonstrates that funds have been received by the depositor from Bhushan Steel Ltd therefore, even in the case of the shareholder, assessee has proved the source of source of the funds deposited. He therefore, submitted that the order passed by the ld Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. With respect to the several decisions relied upon by the ld DR, he submitted that these are not applicable to the facts of the case as in the present case the complete enquiry has been made by the ld Assessing Officer, even the enquiry was also carried out with the Directors of those subscribing companies. 11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the orders of the ld Assessing Officer as well as the order passed by the ld CIT u/s 263 of the Act. This section provides that the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions namely before revising the order: a. That the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous, and b. That it is prejudicial to the interest of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further stated that as the assessee is carrying on the development of a project of residential complex, IT park at Punjab therefore, such investment are made. He further stated that investments are made on long term basis in the company. With respect to the report of the inspector that these companies were not available at the addresses given, he stated that the address visited by the inspector is incorrect and therefore, at the given address these companies could not be found. He further narrated once again the correct address of these companies. He further submitted the bank statement of these companies to show the amount deposited with the assessee company. Further statement of Mr. Saurabh Jain who is also the director of these companies was recorded on 29.05.2014 who also confirmed the above transactions. Before the ld CIT the assessee thus submitted that complete enquiry with respect to the three companies have been made by the ld Assessing Officer. The ld CIT has stated that no evidence to the nature of the capital advances or capital goods have been produced. The assessee has submitted that these are the share capital money received by the assessee adequately before the ld A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be subject to revision, but it is only when such type of mistake makes the order "prejudicial‟, then only the CIT can assume the power of the revision. Further, the power of revisions is not meant to exercise for the purpose of directing the officer to hold another investigation when the order of the officer was not found to be erroneous. In the present case the ld CIT has failed to show that what is the "thorough investigation/ examination‟ required to be made by the AO in the present circumstances when all the possible enquiries have been taken by the ld AO. The ld CIT has also not shown that the order of the ld AO is contrary to the provisions of the Act or any judicial precedent. In the present case the ld AO even examined the source of the credit of share capital of the share holders. The shareholder companies were issued enquiry letters u/s 133(6) of the Act as well as summons were issued to their directors u/s 131 and they were examined. The version of the shareholder was also not proved to be wrong by the ld CIT. Therefore, neither the ld CIT could show that it is matter of "inadequate enquiry" or "un-sustainability" of the order. In view of this we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents. It is also established that these inter corporate deposits have been repaid. Further in case of Rajmandir Estate the form of share application money were found blank, however, in the present case it has not been stated that any such other incriminating documents is relied upon by the ld CIT. in the present case no relationship was also established as stated in para No. 23(d) of that decision. Further, as stated in para No. 23(g) of that decision, that the AO did not examine a single director of the assessee company or of the subscribing company, but in the present case directors of the subscribing company were examined and they confirmed the facts. Further, the amount of investment in share by those companies looking to the project of the company was also not found to be a plain lie. There is no allegation in the present case of money laundering also. In that case on the facts, it was held to be a case of "inadequate enquiry‟ as the ld Assessing Officer did not hold requisite investigation except for calling for the records. In the present case, the ld Assessing Officer has made the due enquiry by examining the directors of the subscribing companies. Therefore, in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
