RIDDHI SIDDHI GASES PRIVATE LIMITED,KEONJHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

Shri, P.K.Mishra P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, d AR appeared for the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the issues in this appeal is in regard It was submitted by ld AR that the issues in this appeal is in regard It was submitted by ld AR that the issues in this appeal is in regard to the addition representing unexplained share application money to an to the addition representing unexplained share application money to an to the addition representing unexplained share application money to an extent of Rs.3,17,705/ s.3,17,705/- received from Shri Saroj Kumar aroj Kumar Dash. It was the submission that on the ground that notice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act to submission that on the ground that notice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act to submission that on the ground that notice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act to Shri S.K.Dash came to be returned by the postal department with the Shri S.K.Dash came to be returned by the postal department with the Shri S.K.Dash came to be returned by the postal department with the P a g e 1 | 3 remark ‘not found’, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee. It was the submission that on appeal, the ld CIT(A) without appreciating that Shri Saroj Kumar Dash was brother-in-law of the Director of the assessee company and was directly involved in the day today activities of the assessee company and that the AO had completed the assessment in clear violation of the principles of natural justice made the disallowance, confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that if the issues are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, the assessee would be in a position to produce all the evidences, as required by the Assessing Officer to substantiate its case.

In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing officer and ld CIT(A).

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) in para ‘Decision’ shows that he has taken the stand that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the share applicants. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the notice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act was issued after 21.10.2016 to Shri Saroj Kumar Dash and the assessment order has been passed on 23.11.2016 clearly shows that adequate opportunity had not been granted to the assessee to substantiate its claim of share application money. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues are restored to the file of the Assessing P a g e 2 | 3 Officer to pass fresh assessment order after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.