MONTROSE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) affirmed the order of the ld. AO by giving conflicting and contradictory findings as regards to furnishing of evidences by the assessee when the ld. AO has recorded the finding that the assessee has furnished all the evidences qua the share capital and share premium in respect share subscribers.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case, the assessee has furnished all the evidences before the ld. AO and the ld. AO has acknowledged the same in the assessment order. We note that the addition was only made for the reason that there was no compliance to the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act and therefore, deposition of the subscriber companies could not be recorded and consequently, the

In the instant case before us also, the assessee has furnished all the evidences proving identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions but AO has not commented on these evidences filed by the assessee. Under these facts and circumstances and considering underlying facts in the light of ratio laid down in the