AMRITRASHI INFRA(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

1 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, �यायपीठ –“B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम�)�ी पी. एम.जगताप,उपा�य� एवं �ी ए.टी. वक�,�याियक सद�य) [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) &Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amritrashi Infra Private Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax- (PAN: AAKCA2544E) 4, Kolkata.

Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 14.07.2020 Date of Pronouncement 12.08.2020 For the Appellant S/Shri Kapil Goel & Sandip Goel, Advocates For the Respondent Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR

ORDER Per A. T. Varkey, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax(hereinafter referred to Ld. Pr. CIT), Kolkatadated14-03-2019 for the Assessment Year(in short AY) 2012-13 passed under section (in short u/s) 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

called as ‘First Ld. Pr. CIT’ and the second incumbent, who passed the impugned order is called as ‘Second Ld. Pr. C.I.T’].

4(v) `Considering the above facts and circumstances of case, the assessment order passed on 26.03.2015 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. AO is also directed to examine the source of share application, identity of investor and its genuineness. ( emphasis given by us)

3 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

4 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee company to produce documents and evidences which it may choose to rely upon for substantiating its own claim. Thereafter a fresh assessment order may be passed in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The AO is further directed to adjudicate the said issue do novo and pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with relevant provisions of law.” ( emphasis given by us)

“1. That impugned order passed u/s 263 dated 14.03.2019 IInd round) by PCIT 4 Kolkata for the period under consideration is void ab initio as very first assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 26.03.2015 is itself passed on non existing and unlawful grounds and is without authority of law, accordingly all subsequent proceedings including impugned order u/s 263 (dated 14.03.2019) is void ab initio and deserves to be quashed" 2. That impugned order passed u/s 263 dated /4.03.2019 (IInd round) by PCIT 4 Kolkata for the period under consideration is void ab initio as there is no power under the statute to invoke section 263 qua order passed in consequence to first revision order u/s. 263 and that too by again setting aside the second order passed in consequence to first revision order u/s 263 accordingly same (order passed u/s. 263 dated 14.03.2019) deserves to be quashed. 3. That impugned order passed u/s 263 dated 14.03.2019(IInd round) by PClT 4 Kolkata for the period under consideration is void ab initio as both the foundational orders namely first assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 26.03.2015 is invalid and unlawful order (which in turn can cause no valid prejudice u/s 263) and further first revision (thereon u/s 263 to improvise the said asst. order (no such power u/s 263 there) is also invalidly passed and all subsequent proceedings including impugned order u/s 263 (dated 14.03.2019) being based on invalid orders deserves to be quashed.”

5 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

6 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

the shareholders and directed them to prove their identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the share transaction as required by the First Ld. Pr. CIT vide his order dated 23.08.2016 passed u/s. 263 of the Act (first revisional order of Ld. Pr. CIT). The Ld. AR also drew our attention to the fact that the second AO has clearly acknowledged that the shareholders have replied to all his queries to prove their identity, genuineness and creditworthiness as well as the source of funds which facts have been duly verified by him. The Ld. AR pointed out that the AO has observed in the second/re-assessment order that the assessee-company was incorporated on 11.02.2012 i.e. this is the first assessment year of the assessee-company after incorporation and the AO has admited that he has examined the books of account and found that the assessee company has shown Rs.44,61,00,000/- as non-current investment as on 31.03.2012 and thereafter has made only an addition/disallowance of Rs.10,366/- u/s. 14A of the Act. Therefore, according to Ld. AR, pursuant to the first revisional order of the First Ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act when was complied in letter and spirit by the second AO, subsequent/impugned action of the next incumbent in the chair of Pr.CIT-4 (second) to undertake an exercise of revisional jurisdictional under section 263 (revision) which culminated in second revisional order dated 14.03.2019 tantamount to the new incumbent in the chair of Pr.CIT-4 (second) reviewing the order of his predecessor Pr. CIT-4 (First) dated 23.08.2016, which is not permitted by Law. According to Ld. AR, the second Ld. Pr. CIT – 4 by passing the second revisional order dated 14.03.2019 has substituted the First Pr. CIT’s 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 dated 07.12.2016 was pursuant to the first revisional order of the First Ld. Pr. CIT and on the subject matter on which specific directions/instructions were given by the First Ld. Pr.CIT, which since having been complied by the AO, brings into operation the 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 spells out where the error happened to second AO as an investigator or adjudicator while the AO was carrying out the directions of First Ld. Pr.CIT pursuant to the first revisional

7 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

order, which exercise according to Ld.AR unfortunately this Second Ld. Pr.CIT has not done. So according to Ld. A.R, he cannot be permitted to again ask the AO to start the investigation in the way he thinks it proper on the very same subject on which merger has taken place by virtue of the order of First Ld. Pr. CIT. Therefore, according to Ld.AR, if this practice is allowed, there will be no end to the assessment proceedings, since if the next i.e. third or fourth Pr. CIT does not like the next assessment orders being passed by an AO under his jurisdiction, in the way he thought it as proper enquiry to have been conducted in a given case or subject matter, then he will interfere and ask the AO to re-do the assessment again and again, which is not permissible and that is exactly why the Parliament in its wisdom has brought in safe- guards, restrictions & conditions precedent to be satisfied strictly before assumption of revisional jurisdiction. According to Ld.AR, the conditions precedent is that the Ld. Pr. CIT should find that assessment order framed by the AO as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the Revenue. According to Ld.AR, the Second Ld. Pr. CIT without satisfying this condition precedent has invoked the revisional jurisdiction (second time), so all his actions are ab initio void. The Ld. AR also pointed out that only from the next AY i.e. AY 2013-14 i.e. with effect from 01.04.2013, the Parliament has inserted sub-clause (vii) (b) in sub-section(2) to section 56of the Act by which the share premium could have been ascertained and brought to tax. The Ld. AR also pointed out that only from AY 2013-14, the AO when considering section 68 of the Act could have even looked for the second source of the share capital & premium. In this assessment year (AY 2012-13) the onus on the assessee in respect of credit found in the books was confined to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the Source i.e. only the first source not the second source also. And since that was the requirement of law, according to Ld AR, when the assessee face the scrutiny proceedings before the AO, he is bound to satisfy the AO as per the law in force during this relevant assessment year (AY 2012-13) and it cannot be expected from him/assessee to be a clairvoyant to anticipate the requirement of law for future years and satisfy those also before the AO in the present AY, when there is no such requirement of law that the assessee must be aware of the source of source of the share-applicant at the time when he collects the share capital itself and according to

8 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

him, if it is insisted then it is unfair and unreasonable. According to Ld. AR, when the law was only that assessee need to be aware of first source only then the AO could not have gone and verified beyond the source of the share applicants from whom the assessee had received the share capital. So when the requirement of law is only that assessee must ascertain that the share-applicant, who proposed to invest in assessee’s company’s share capital has proper identity and creditworthiness and is capable of investing in the assessee, then the AO in turn can verify the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share subscriber from whom the assessee received the share capital and verify whether the identity is proper, whether the transaction took place through banking channel, etc. and the creditworthiness of the share applicant etc. According to Ld AR, if the AO or even the Ld. Pr. CIT expecting/asking the assessee to find out the source of source of share-applicant, when the Law does not in this AY requires assessee to fulfil, then it would be quiet unreasonable, harsh and unfair practice, which action is against the Rule of Law, which is a basic feature of the Constitution of India. Since the law was that assessee should furnish the source of share capital it received in this A.Y, assessee by producing all documents in respect of share-applicants had discharged its onus, then burden shifts to the shoulder of AO to find fault with the documents or test the veracity of the documents. Despite the law was as such, then also AO in the second round, pursuant to the specific direction of the First Ld. Pr. CIT-4, issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to all the share applicants/subscribers have clearly acknowledged having received their replies to the section 133(6) notice and conceded the fact that all of them had given their confirmation of subscribing to the share capital and premium in assessee’s company as well as their source of income for applying for the share capital and premium, thus it was pointed out by the Ld AR that the source of source was also disclosed before the second AO and also furnished inter-alia information that they are having PAN and regularly filing tax returns. Therefore, according to Ld. AR, the AO has conducted enquiries and has recorded these facts and, therefore, order of the AO who is a quasi- judicial authority vested with the power to assess the income of an assessee cannot be termed as erroneous for lack of enquiry. Further according to Ld. AR, the view of the second AO on the facts of the case is a plausible view and the Second Ld. Pr. CIT has

9 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

not termed the view of second AO to be unsustainable in Law. So the Ld AR contented that the very action of invoking of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act by the Second Ld. Pr. CIT is bad in law and so has to be quashed.

10 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

AO’s second assessment order was erroneous for lack of enquiry. And, therefore, he does not want us to interfere.

11 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

issuing any notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act and has not controverted the contention of assessee before him the fact that statement of the director of assessee was recorded by the AO after summoning him u/s. 131 of the Act. According to the Ld. AR, the Ld. CIT/DR cannot now bring out certain facts, which are not discussed by the Second Ld. Pr.CIT and make out an altogether different case, when the Second AO has clearly stated in his order that he had duly issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act and got replies from his shareholders and the fact of issue of notice u/s. 133(6) which fact is corroborated by the letter of shareholder’s placed at page-32 of PB-1 and others. Therefore according to Ld. AR, the second AO pursuant to the specific direction of First Ld. Pr. CIT has complied with his command and in that process had duly issued summons u/s. 131 of the Act to the Director of assessee-company and recorded his statement and even questioned him the rationale behind the share premium which was duly explained by the director and thereafter had gone through the documents submitted by assessee and thereafter had issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act and has acknowledged in his order that he received the replies from the shareholders along with documents to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital & premium invested by them along with the source of fund, which facts were verified by the Second AO. And after satisfying himself, the second AO accepted the share capital & premiums, and in that process did not draw any adverse view or made any addition u/s. 68 of the Act, which view is a possible view as per law and cannot at any rate be classified as unsustainable in law. So according to Ld. AR, the order of second AO in respect of his view/satisfaction regarding share capital & premium is the result of specific direction of the First Ld. Pr. CIT, so doctrine of merger has taken place and on this subject matter, the second Pr. CIT cannot enter into and again revise, which power he does not enjoy. Notwithstanding this contention, according to Ld.AR the mandatory condition precedent to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 has not been fulfilled, without which the Second Ld. Pr. CIT could not have exercised his revisional power. Thus, according to Ld.AR, the second Ld. Pr. CIT has not satisfied the conditions precedent which is sine qua non for usurping the revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction itself is ab initio void and therefore, need to be quashed.

12 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

case law(s) relied upon by both the parties. It is noted that in this case the original return was filed u/s. 139 of the Act and the original first assessment was framed by the First AO u/s. 143 (3) of the Act on 26-03-2015 by making an addition of Rs. 45,66,01,634/-. Thereafter, the First Ld. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata issued SCN dated 22.06.2016 to the assessee- company conveying his intention to interdict in the First AO’ s action in framing the said original first assessment order dated 26-03-2015. Thereafter, the First Ld. Pr.CIT passed his First Revision order u/s. 263 of the Act on 23-08-2016, wherein he was pleased to set aside the original assessment order dated 26-03-2015 and directed de novo assessment along with the specific direction to inquire about the collection of share capital & premium.

13 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

exercised his revisional power which he is empowered to do by the Act. For that, we note that the statutory condition precedent as prescribed by section 263 of the Act is that the Ld. Pr. CIT can invoke the revisional jurisdiction, if the assessment order is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the Revenue. Keeping this in mind, we have to examine as to whether in the first place the order of the Second Assessing Officer found fault by the Second Principal CIT is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. For that, let us take the guidance of judicial precedent laid down by the Hon'bIe Apex Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC), wherein their Lordship have held that twin conditions needs to be satisfied before exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( in short, ‘CIT’). The twin conditions are that the order of the Assessing Officer must be erroneous and so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the following circumstances, the order of the AO can be held to be erroneous order, that is (i) if the Assessing Officer's order was passed on incorrect assumption of fact; or (ii) incorrect application of law; or (iii)Assessing Officer's order is in violation of the principle of natural justice; or (iv) if the order is passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind; (v) if the AO has not investigated an issue before him; then the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer can be termed as an erroneous order. Coming next to the second limb, which is required to be examined is as to whether the actions of the AO can be termed as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. When this aspect is examined one has to understand what is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue? The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries (supra) held that this phrase i.e. "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Their Lordship held that it has to be remembered that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. When the Assessing Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss to the revenue, or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Pr. CIT/CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue "unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law."

14 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

assessment order/re-assessment order passed by the Second AO u/s. 143(3)/263 of the Act dated 07-12-2016 is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. As we have seen the First AO in the original first assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act made an addition of Rs.45,66,01,634/- by an order dated 26-03-2015, which has been interdicted by the first revisional order passed by the First Ld. Pr. CIT vide order dated 28- 03-2016, wherein the Ld. Pr. CIT was pleased to set aside the original first assessment order dated 26-03-2015 and directed the AO to de novo assess the income of the assessee and gave specific direction to enquire about share capital & premium. The operative portion of the first revisional order dated 28.03.2016 is again reproduced below for the sake of continuity:- “4(v) Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed on 26.03.2015 is set aside denovo with a direction to carry out proper examination of books of accounts and Bank accounts of assessee as well as investors. The AO is also directed to examine the source of share application, identity of investors and its genuineness. The assessment proceedings may be initiated at the earliest to be completed without waiting time barring date. The AO must provide sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee in order to meet natural justice, equity and fairness.”(emphasis given by us)

15 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

16 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

(ii) copy of Form filed with the ROC; (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. 22. The First Ld. Pr. CIT 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 carried out by the AO. Further, The First Ld. Pr. CIT found fault with the AO’s order for non-issuance of notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act. The 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 examine the contention of the assessee or to bring on record anything against the assessee and according to him, the AO has simply jumped to the conclusion and treated the share capital as unexplained cash credit. The First Ld. Pr. CIT found fault with the action of AO for not bothering to issue show cause notice regarding points of addition to be made. Therefore, according to the First Ld. Pr. CIT the first original assessment order framed u/s. 143(3) dated 26-03-2015 was against the principle of natural justice and, therefore, he found it fit to order de novo assessment and gave specific direction in respect of share capital & premium collected by assessee.

17 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

that the original assessment of AO dated 26.03.2016 was set aside back to AO u/s. 263 of the Act by the First Ld. Pr. CIT by his first revisional order dated 23.08.2016 for de-novo assessmentwhich means the second AO is free to assess the income of assessee afresh, but with specific directions to AO while framing the reassessment order vide para 4(v) of his order. The specific directions of First 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; v) The AO to complete the assessment at the earliest without waiting for the time barring date.

18 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

the shareholders and directed them to prove their identity, genuineness and creditworthiness regarding the share transaction with the assessee as per the direction of the Ld. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata (First Ld. Pr. CIT) in his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act dated 28-03-2016 (First Revisional Order). Thereafter, the second AO notes that he received all the replies to his queries from the share applicants/subscribers in response to notices issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act (refer paper book 2 page 2 to 352) and then he carried out the verification of documents submitted by the share applicants/investors for proving the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness and also their source of fund to invest in the assessee company. Thereafter, the second AO by order dated 07/12/2016 disallowed an amount of Rs. 10,366/- u/s. 14A of the Act and thus it is noted that second AO did not draw any adverse inference against the share capital and premium collected by the assessee after carrying out the aforesaid exercise as directed by the First Ld. Pr. CIT to him. This exercise carried out by the second AO while framing the second assessment/re-assessment has been faulted as a case of lack of enquiry by the second Ld. Pr.CIT and the precise question is whether the action of second AO in respect of share capital and premium collected by the assessee can be termed as a case of lack of enquiry.

19 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

CIT, the AO in the second round has not enquired about the share capital & premium collected by the assessee. For that we need to carefully examine as to whether the second AO has carried out his dual role as an investigator as well as an adjudicator while deciding the issue of share capital and premium collected by the assessee for AY 2012-13. Before we examine about the investigative role of the AO, we need to examine the law as it stood in AY 2012-13 and is applicable in this case. Section 68 of the Act reads as under:-

Section 68: Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year: Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless- (a) The person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) Such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply if the person, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10].

20 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

Provided that this clause shall not apply where the consideration for issue of shares is received- (i) By a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company or a venture capital fund, or (ii) By a company from a class or classes of persons as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf. Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, (a) The fair market value of the shares shall be the value- (i) As may be determined in accordance with such method as may be prescribed, or (ii) As may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer based on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. Whichever is higher:

21 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

(b) Venture capital company, venture capital fund, and venture capital undertaking shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clause (a), clause (b) and clause (c) of Explanation to clause (23FB) of section 10]”.

Further, according to Ld. AR in the case of unlisted companies, it is common knowledge that premium fixed is a matter of mutual agreement and ITAT Mumbai in the case of Gagandeep

22 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has held that it is a prerogative of the Board of Directors of the company to decide the premium amount and it is the wisdom of the shareholders whether they want to subscribe to such a heavy premium. And the aforesaid view of the ITAT has been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court order dated 20th March 2017. Further the Hon'ble High Court observed as under-

“(i) We find that the proviso to Section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1stApril, 2013. Thus it would be effective only from the Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the subject Assessment Year. Infact, before the Tribunal, it was not even the case of the Revenue that Section 68 of the Act as in force during the subject years has to be read/understood as though the proviso added subsequently effective only from 1stApril, 2013 was its normal meaning. The Parliament did not introduce to Section 68 of the Act with retrospective effect nor does the proviso so introduced that it was introduced "for removal of doubts" or that it is "declaratory". Therefore it is not open to give it retrospective effect, by proceeding on the basis that the addition of the proviso to Section 68 of the Act is immaterial and does not change the interpretation of section 68 of the Act both before and after the adding of the proviso. In any view of the matter the three essential tests while confirming the pre proviso Section 68 of the Act laid down by the Courts namely the genuineness of the transaction, identity and the capacity of the investor have all been examined by the impugned order of the Tribunal and on facts it has found satisfied.

(ii) Further it was a submission on behalf of the Revenue that such large amount of share premium gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders i.e. they are bogus. The Apex Court in CIT vis. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 317 ITR 218 in the context to the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit. "

(B) The Tribunal Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Alcon Biosciences (P) Ltd., ITA No. 1946/M/2016, Order dated 28.02.2018 held as under·

23 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

"As regards the AOs observation with regard to the issue of shares at a face value of Rs.10/- issued at a premium of Rs.990 per share, we find that there is no merit in the findings of the AO for the reason that the issue of shares at a premium and subscription to such shares is within the knowledge of the company and the subscribers to the share application money and the AO does not have any role to play as long as the assessee has proved genuineness of transactions. We further notice that the AO cannot question issue of shares at a premium and also cannot bring to tax such share premium within the provisions of section 68 of the Act, before (supra) held that Proviso inserted to section 68 is prospective in nature.

Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chain House International (P) Ltd., order dated 07.08.2018, decision reported in 98 taxmann.com47 has held at para 52 as under-

"Issuing the share at a premium was a commercial decision. It is the prerogative of the Board of Directors of a company to decide the premium amount and it is the wisdom of shareholder whether they want to subscribe the shares at such a premium or not. This was a mutual decision between both the companies. In day to day market, unless and until, the rates if fixed by any Govt. Authority or unless there is any restriction on the amount of share premium under any law, the price of the shares is decided on the mutual understanding of the parties concerned ..”.

(C) The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT-l(l) vs. M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. the ITAT has held as under:

"We have carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities. In our considered view, the issue of shares at premium is always a commercial decision which does not require any justification. Further the premium is a capital receipt which has to be dealt with in accordance with Sec. 78 of the Companies Act, 1956. Further, the company is not required to prove the genuineness, purpose or justification for charging premium of shares, share premium by its very nature in a capital receipt and is not income for its ordinary sense. It is not in dispute that the assessee had filed all the requisite details/documents which are required to explain in the books of accounts by the provisions of Sec. 68 of the Act. The assessee has successfully established the identity of the companies who have purchased shares at a premium. The assessee has also filed bank details to explain the source of the

24 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

share holders and the genuineness of the transaction was also established by filing copies of share application forms and Form No. 2 filed with the Registrar of Companies.

Considering all these undisputed facts, it can be safely concluded that the initial burden of proof as rested upon the assessee has been successfully discharged by the assessee. Even if it is held that excess premium has been charged, it does not become income as it is a capital receipt. The receipt is not in the revenue field. What is to be probed by the AO is whether the identity of the assessee is proved or not. In the case of share capital, if the identity is proved, no addition can be made u/s 68 of the Act. We draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Ltd. 317 ITR 218. "

(D)[Green Infra Limtied – 38 taxmann.com 253 (Mumbai-Trib). 10. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material evidences brought on record in the form of Paper book. The entire dispute revolves around the charging of share premium of Rs. 490/- per share on a book value of Rs. 10/- each. This dispute is more so because of the fact that the assessee company was incorporated during the year under consideration. Therefore, according to the revenue authorities, it is beyond any logical reasoning that a company with zero balance sheet could garner Rs. 490/-per share premium from its subscribers. Such transaction may raise eyebrows but considering the subscribers to the assessee company, the test for the genuineness of the transaction goes into oblivion. It is an undisputed fact admitted by the Revenue authorities that 10,19,000 equity shares has been subscribed and allotted to IDFC PE Fund-Il which company is a Front Manager of IDFC Ltd., in which company Government of India is holding 18% of shares. The contributors to the IDFC PE Fund-Il who is a subscriber to the assessee's share capital, are LIC, Union of India, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Indian Overseas Bank and Canara Bank which are all public sector undertakings. Therefore, to raise eyebrows to a transaction where there is so much of involvement of the Government directly or indirectly does not make any sense.

10.1 No doubt a non-est company or a zero balance company asking for a share premium of Rs. 490/- per share defies all commercial prudence but at the same time we cannot ignore the fact that it is a prerogative of the Board of Directors of a company to decide the premium amount and it is the wisdom of the share holders whether they want to subscribe to such a heavy premium. The Revenue authorities cannot question the charging of such of huge

25 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

premium without any bar from any legislated law of the land. Details of subscribers were before the Revenue authorities. The AO has also confirmed the transaction from the subscribers by issuing notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act. The Board of Directors contains persons who are associated with IDFC group of companies, therefore their integrity and credibility cannot be doubted. The entire grievance of the Revenue revolves around the charging of such of huge premium so much so that the Revenue authorities did not even blink their eyes in invoking provisions of Sec. 56( I) of the Act. [Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Apeak Infotech-88 taxmann.com. 695 (Bombay) when the question was “whether the amount received as share premium on issue of share by the respondent-assessees-companies could be taxed as profits and gains of business in the hands of the assessees under section 28(iv) of the Act”.

In any case, we may point out that the amendment to section 68 of the Act by the addition of proviso thereto took place with effect from April 1, 2013. Therefore, it is not applicable for the subject assessment year 2012-13. So for as the pre-amended section 68 of the Act is concerned, the same cannot be invoked in this case, as evidence was led by the respondents- assessees before the Assessing Officer with regard to identity, capacity of the investor as well as the genuineness of the investment. Therefore, admittedly, the Assessing Officer did not invoke section 68 of the Act to bring the share premium to tax. Similarly, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on consideration of facts, found that section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked. In view of the above, it is likely that the Revenue may have taken an informed decision not to urge the issue of section 68 of the Act before the Tribunal.

It is further pertinent to note that the definition of income as provided under section 2(24) of the Act at the relevant time did not define as income any consideration received for issueof share in excess of its fair market value, This Came into the statute only with effect from April 1, 2013 and thus, would have no application to the share premium received by the respondent-assessee in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2012-13. Similarly, the amendment to section 68 of the Act by addition of proviso was made subsequent to previous year relevant to the subject assessment year 2012-13 and cannot be invoked. It may be pointed out that this court in CIT-v.-Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [201TI 80 taxmann.com.272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 (Bom) has while refusing to entertain a question with regard -to the .proviso to section 68 of the Act has held that the proviso to

26 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14.

(E) ITA-2270/KOL/2016 –Trend Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee specifically argued before the ld. CIT(A) that the allotment of shares at a premium cannot be considered as sham or income of the assessee. It was pleaded at a preliminary level that the receipt of share capital and share premium is on capital account and that the same cannot be subject to tax as income. Specific submissions were also made in the context of introduction of section 56(2)(viib) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.20l3 which reads as under: "(viib) Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares:

Provided that this clause shall not apply where the consideration for issue of shares is received- (iii) By a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company or a venture capital fund, or (iv) By a company from a class or classes of persons as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf. Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, (c) The fair market value of the shares shall be the value-

(iii) As may be determined in accordance with such method as may be prescribed, or (iv) As may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer based on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or anyother business or commercial rights of similar nature, whichever is higher: (d)Venture capital company, venture capital fund, and venture capital undertaking shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clause (a), clause (b) and clause (c) of Explanation to clause (23FB) of section 10]”.

27 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

It was pleaded that the aforesaid provisions cannot be made applicable for the year under appeal. Accordingly, it was argued that the issuance of shares of premium cannot be brought to tax under any section of the Income Tax Act up to assessment year 2012- 13.

We find that the reliance placed by the Id. AR in the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Apeak Infotech reported in 88 Taxmann.com 695 dt 08.06.2017 wherein the question raised before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court are as under:

A. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct to uphold the decision on Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the share premium received by the assessee-company cannot be taxed under Section 68 of the Act ignoring the ratio laid down by this Court in its decision reported in the case of Major Metals Ltd. vs. Union of India [2013J 3591TR 450 (Bom)?

B. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was right in deleting addition made by the Assessing Officer, by holding that the share premium receipt is capital in nature?"

The Hon'ble Court held as under:

Regarding Question A:

(a) The issue raised by the Revenue in this question is to bring to tax the share premium received under section 68 of the Act. We find that the issue of bringing the share premium to tax under section 68 of the Act was not an issue which was urged by the appellant Revenue before the Tribunal. The only issue which was urged before the Tribunal as recorded in paraJ J of the impugned order is the addition of share capital and share application money in the hands of the assessee as income under section 28(iv) of the Act. We find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did considerthe issue of applicability of section 68 of the Act and concluded that it does not apply. The Revenue seems to have accepted the same and did not urge this issue before the Tribunal. Mr. Bhoot, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue also fairly states that the issue of applicability of section 68 of the Act was not urged by the Revenue before the Tribunal.

28 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

(b) It is a settled position in law as held by this court in CIT v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. [20021 J 22 Taxman 6431256 ITR 395 (Bom.) that in an appeal under section 260A of the Act, the High Court can only decide a question if it had been raised before the Tribunal even if not determined by the Tribunal. Therefore, no occasion to consider the question as prayed for arises.

(c) In any case, we may point out that the amendment to section 68 of the Act by the addition of proviso thereto took place with effect from April 1, 2013. Therefore, it is not applicable for the subject assessment year 2012-13. So for as the pre-amended section 68 of the Act is concerned, the same cannot be invoked in this case, as evidence was led by the respondents-assessees before the Assessing Officer with regard to identity, capacity of the investor as well as the genuineness of the investment. Therefore, admittedly, the Assessing Officer did not invoke section 68 of the Act to bring the share premium to tax. Similarly, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on consideration of facts, found that section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked. In view of the above, it is likely that the Revenue may have taken an informed decision not to urge the issue of section 68 of the Act before the Tribunal.

(d) We may also point out that decision of this court in Major Metals Ltd. v. Union of India [20121 19 taxmann.com 1761207 Taxman 185/[20131 359 ITR 450 Bom. proceeded on its own facts to uphold the invocation of section 68 of the Act by the Settlement Commission. In the above case, the Settlement Commission arrived at a finding of fact that the subscribers to shares of the assessee-company were not creditworthy inasmuch as they did not have financial standing which would enable them to make an investment of Rs. 6,00,00,000 at premium at Rs. 990 per share. It was this finding of the fact arrived at by the Settlement Commission which was not disturbed by this court in its writ jurisdiction. In the present case the person who have subscribed to the share and paid share premium have admittedly made statement on oath before the Assessing Officer as recorded by the Tribunal. No finding in this case has been given by the authorities that shareholder/share applicants were unidentifiable or bogus.

(e) In the above view Question No. A is not being entertained in view of the decision in Tata Chemical Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the question (A) is not entertained.

29 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

Regarding Question B :

(a) We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal upheld the view of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to hold that share premium is capital receipt and therefore, cannot be taxed as income. This conclusion was reached by the impugned order following the decision of this court in Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. (supra) and of the apex court in G. S. Homes and Hotel (P.)Ltd. (supra). In both the above cases the court has held that the amount received on issue of share capital including premium are on capital account and cannot be considered to be income.

(c) It is further pertinent to note that the definition of income as provided under section 2(24) of the Act at the relevant time did not define as income any consideration received for issue of share in excess of its fair market value. This came into the statute only with effect from April 1, 2013 and thus, would have. no application to the share premium received by the respondent-assessee in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2012-13. Similarly, the amendment to section 68 of the Act by addition of proviso was made subsequent to previous year relevant to the subject assessment year 2012-13 and cannot be invoked. It may be pointed out that this court in CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 (Bom.) has while refusing to entertain a question with regard to section 68 of the Act has held that the proviso to section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14.

(c) In view of the above. question No. B as proposed also does not give rise to any substantial question of law as it is an issue concluded by the decision of this court in Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. (supra) and in the apex court in G. S. Homes and Hotels (P.)Ltd. (supra).Thus not entertained. 34. Relying on the aforesaid judicial precedents of Hon’ble High courts and the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that in this AY i.e. AY 2012-13, the amendment in section 68 of the Act took place wherein the addition of proviso was with effect from 01.04.2013 and so is not applicable in this AY. Further, as noted, the definition of income as provided under section 2(24) of the Act at the relevant time (AY 2012-13) did not define as income any consideration received for issue of shares in excess of its fair market value. This came into

30 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

effect from 01.04.2013 and thus would have no application to the share premium received by the assessee in the previous year relevant to AY 2012-13. With this back-drop in respect of the requirement of law, let us study the judicial precedents which were laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Courts on the provision of section 68 of the Act, while dealing with Share Capital/loan etc so that we can examine whether pursuant to the specific direction of First Ld Pr CIT, the second AO has discharged his role as an investigator and whether his re-assessment/second assessment order is a plausible view or can be termed as unsustainable view. Before we adjudicate let us look at section 68 of the Act as is applicable in this case and the judicial precedents on the issue at hand.

"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. " The phraseology of section 68 is clear. The Legislature has laid down that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In this case the legislative mandate is not in terms of the words ‘shall’ be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year". The Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting similar phraseology used in section 69 has held that in creating the legal fiction the phraseology employs the word "may" and not "shall". Thus the un-satisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570.

31 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

creditors, the proper course would be to assess such credit in the hands of the creditor (after making due enquiries from such creditor). In arriving at this conclusion, the Hon'ble Court has further stressed the presence of word "may" in section 68. The Hon’ble Apex Court ratio was taken note by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy CIT vs Rohini Builders (2002) 256ITR360 wherein the Hon’ble High Court observed at pages 369 and 370 of this order are reproduced hereunder:-

"Merely because summons issued to some of the creditors could not be served or they failed to attend before the Assessing Officer, cannot be a ground to treat the loans taken by the assessee from those creditors as non-genuine in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation [1986] 159 ITR 78. In the said decision the Supreme Court has observed that when the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR numbers, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the Revenue's case and in order to sustain the addition the Revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the lack of creditworthiness and mere non-compliance of summons issued by the Assessing Officer under section 131, by the alleged creditors will not be sufficient to draw and adverse inference against the assessee. in the case of six creditors who appeared before the Assessing Officer and whose statements were recorded by the Assessing Officer, they have admitted having advanced loans to the assessee by account payee cheques and in case the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the cash amount deposited by those creditors in their bank accounts, the proper course would have been to make assessments in the cases of those creditors by' treating the cash deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69. 37. In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari 136 Taxman 213, (supra), the Hon'ble Guahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68 of the Act, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration also the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which are in his knowledge. The Hon'ble Court in the said case held that, once it is found that an assessee has actually taken money from depositor/lender who has been fully identified, the assessee/borrower cannot be called upon to explain, much less prove the affairs of such third party, which he is not even supposed to know or about which he cannot be held to be accredited with any knowledge. In this view, the Hon'ble Court has laid down that section 68 of Income-tax Act, should be read along with section 106 of Evidence Act. The relevant observations at page 260 to 262, 264 and 265 of the order are reproduced herein below:-

"While interpreting the meaning and scope of section 68, one has to bear in mind that normally, interpretation of a statute shall be general, in nature, subject only to such exceptions as may be logically permitted by the statute itself or by some other law connected therewith or relevant thereto. Keeping in view these fundamentals of interpretation of statutes, when we read carefully the provisions of section 68, we

32 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

notice nothing in section 68 to show that the scope of the inquiry under section 68 by the Revenue Department shall remain confined to the transactions, which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor nor does the wording of section 68 indicate that section 68 does not authorize the Revenue Department to make inquiry into the source(s) of the credit and/or sub-creditor. The language employed by section 68 cannot be read to impose such limitations on the powers of the Assessing Officer. The logical conclusion, therefore, has to be, and we hold that an inquiry under section 68 need not necessarily be kept confined by the Assessing Officer within the transactions, which took place between the assessee and his creditor, but that the same may be extended to the transactions, which have taken place between the creditor and his sub-creditor. Thus, while the Assessing Officer is under section 68, free to look into the source(s) of the creditor and/or of the sub-creditor, the burden on the assessee under section 68 is definitely limited. This limit has been imposed by section 106 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows: "Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.-When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden) of proving that fact is upon him. " ******** What, thus, transpires from the above discussion is that white section 106 of the Evidence Act limits the onus of the assessee to the extent of his proving the source from which he has received the cash credit, section 68 gives ample freedom to the Assessing Officer to make inquiry not only into the source(s)of the creditor but also of his (creditor's) sub-creditors and prove, as a result, of such inquiry, that the money received by the assessee, in the form of loan from the creditor, though routed through the sub-creditors, actually belongs to, or was of, the assessee himself. In other words, while section 68 gives the liberty to the Assessing Officer to enquire into the source/source from where the creditor has received the money, section 106 makes the assessee liable to disclose only the source(s) from where he has himself received the credit and IT is not the burden of the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the source(s) of the sub-creditors. If section 106 and section 68 are to stand together, which they must, then, the interpretation of section 68 are to stand together, which they must, then the interpretation of section 68 has to be in such a way that it does not make section 106 redundant. Hence, the harmonious construction of section 106 of the Evidence Act and section 68 of the Income- tax Act will be that though apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of his creditor, the burden of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions as well as the creditworthiness of the creditor must remain confined to the transactions, which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor. What follows, as a corollary, is that it is not the burden of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions between his creditor and sub-creditors nor is it the burden of the assessee to prove that the sub- creditor had the creditworthiness to advance the cash credit to the creditor from whom the cash credit has been. eventually, received by the assessee. It, therefore, further logically follows that the creditor's creditworthiness has to be Judged vis-a-vis the transactions, which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor, and it is not the business of the assessee to find out the source of money of his creditor or of the genuineness of the transactions, which took between the creditor and sub-creditor and/or creditworthiness of the sub- creditors, for, these aspects may not be within the special knowledge of the assessee. " **********

33 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

" ... If a creditor has, by any undisclosed source, a particular amount of money in the bank, there is no limitation under the law on the part of the assessee to obtain such amount of money or part thereof from the creditor, by way of cheque in the form of loan and in such a case, if the creditor fails to satisfy as to how he had actually received the said amount and happened to keep the same in the bank, the said amount cannot be treated as income of the assessee from undisclosed source. In other words, the genuineness as well as the creditworthiness of a creditor have to be adjudged vis-a-vis the transactions, which he has with the assessee. The reason why we have formed the opinion that it is not the business of the assessee to find out the actual source or sources from where the creditor has accumulated the amount, which he advances, as loan, to the assessee is that so far as an assessee is concerned, he has to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor vis-a-vis the transactions which had taken place between the assessee and the creditor and not between the creditor and the sub-creditors, for, it is not even required under the law for the assessee to try to find out as to what sources from where the creditor had received the amount, his special knowledge under section 106 of the Evidence Act may very well remain confined only to the transactions, which he had' with the creditor and he may not know what transaction(s) had taken place between his creditor and the sub-creditor… " **********

"In other words, though under section 68 an Assessing Officer is free to show, with the help of the inquiry conducted by him into the transactions, which have taken place between the creditor and the sub-creditor, that the transaction between the two were not genuine and that the sub-creditor had no creditworthiness, it will not necessarily mean that the loan advanced by the sub-creditor to the creditor was income of the assessee from undisclosed source unless there is evidence, direct or circumstantial, to show that the amount which has been advanced by the sub-creditor to the creditor, had actually been received by the sub-creditor from the assessee …." **********

"Keeping in view the above position of law, when we turn to the factual matrix of the present case, we find that so far as the appellant is concerned, he has established the identity of the creditors, namely, Nemichand Nahata and Sons (HUF) and Pawan Kumar Agarwalla. The appellant had also shown, in accordance with the burden, which rested on him under section 106 of the Evidence Act, that the said amounts had been received by him by way of cheques from the creditors aforementioned. In fact the fact that the assessee had received the said amounts by way of cheques was not in dispute. Once the assessee had established that he had received the said amounts from the creditors aforementioned by way of cheques, the assessee must be taken to have proved that the creditor had the creditworthiness to advance the loans. Thereafter the burden had shifted to the Assessing Officer to prove the contrary. On mere failure on the part of the creditors to show that their sub-creditors had creditworthiness to advance the said loan amounts to the assessee, such failure, as a corollary, could not have been and ought not to have been, under the law, treated as the income from the undisclosed sources of the assessee himself, when there was neither direct nor circumstantial evidence on record that the said loan amounts actually belonged to, or were owned by, the assessee. Viewed from this angle, we have no hesitation in holding that in the case at hand, the Assessing Officer had failed to show that the amounts, which had come to the hands of the creditors from the hands of the sub-creditors, had actually been received by the sub-creditors from the assessee. In the absence of any such evidence on record, the Assessing Officer could not have treated the said amounts as income derived by the appellant from undisclosed sources. The learned

34 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

Tribunal seriously fell into error in treating the said amounts as income derived by the appellant from. undisclosed sources merely on the failure of the sub-creditors to prove their creditworthiness.” 38. Further, in the case of CIT v. S. Kamaljeet Singh [2005] 147 Taxman 18(All.) their lordships, on the issue of discharge of assessee's onus in relation to a cash credit appearing in his books of account, has observed and held as under:-

"4. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the assessee has discharged the onus which was on him to explain the nature and source of cash credit in question. The assessee discharged the onus by placing (i) confirmation letters of the cash creditors; (ii) their affidavits; (iii) their full addresses and GIR numbers and permanent account numbers. It has found that the assessee's burden stood discharged and so, no addition to his total income on account of cash credit was called for. In view of this finding, we find that the Tribunal was right in reversing the order of the AA C, setting aside the assessment order.” 39. We also take note of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in the case of S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata 347 ITR 347 wherein the Court held as follows:

“15. It is now a settled law that while considering the question whether the alleged loan taken by the assessee was a genuine transaction, the initial onus is always upon the assessee and if no explanation is given or the explanation given by the appellant is not satisfactory, the Assessing Officer can disbelieve the alleged transaction of loan. But the law is equally settled that if the initial burden is discharged by the assessee by producing sufficient materials in support of the loan transaction, the onus shifts upon the Assessing Officer and after verification, he can call for further explanation from the assessee and in the process, the onus may again shift from the Assessing Officer to assessee. 16. In the case before us, the appellant by producing the loan-confirmation-certificates signed by the creditors, disclosing their permanent account numbers and address and further indicating that the loan was taken by account payee cheques, no doubt, prima facie, discharged the initial burden and those materials disclosed by the assessee prompted the Assessing Officer to enquire through the Inspector to verify the statements.” 40. In a case where the issue was whether the assessee availed cash credit as against future sale of product, the AO issued summons to the creditors who did not turn up before him, so AO disbelieved the existence of creditors and saddled the addition, which was overturned by Ld. CIT(A). However, the Tribunal reversed the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and upheld the AO’s decision, which action of Tribunal was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in the case of Crystal Networks (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 353 ITR 171 wherein the Tribunal’s decision was overturned and decision of Ld. CIT(A) upheld and the Hon’ble High Court held that when the basic evidences are on record the

35 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

mere failure of the creditor to appear cannot be basis to make addition. The court held as follows:

36 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

“In our opinion, in such circumstances, the Assessing officer of the assessee cannot take the burden of assessing the profit and loss account of the creditor when admittedly the creditor himself is an income tax assessee. After getting the PAN number and getting the information that the creditor is assessed under the Act, the Assessing officer should enquire from the Assessing Officer of the creditor as to the genuineness" of the transaction and whether such transaction has been accepted by the Assessing officer of the creditor but instead of adopting such course, the Assessing officer himself could not enter into the return of the creditor and brand the same as unworthy of credence. So long it is not established that the return submitted by the creditor has been rejected by its Assessing Officer, the Assessing officer of the assessee is bound to accept the same as genuine when the identity of the creditor and the genuineness" of transaction through account payee cheque has been established. We find that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the Tribunal below followed the well-accepted principle which are required to be followed in considering the effect of Section 68 of the Act and we thus find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the authorities.” 42. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing SLP in the case of Lovely Exports as has been reported as judgment delivered by the CTR at 216 CTR 295:

"Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961? We find no merit in this special leave petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee- company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law. Hence, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment.

37 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order as the transaction entered into by the assessee was a scheme for laundering black money into white money or accounted money and the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the assessee had not established the genuineness of the transaction. " It appears from the record that in the assessment proceedings it was noticed that the assessee company during the year under consideration had brought Rs. 4, 00, 000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- towards share capital and share premium respectively amounting to Rs.24,00, 000/- from four shareholders being private limited companies. The Assessing Officer on his part called for the details from the assessee and also from the share applicants and analyzed the facts and ultimately observed certain abnormal features, which were mentioned in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer, therefore, concluded that nature and source of such money was questionable and evidence produced was unsatisfactory. Consequently, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions under Section 68/69 of the Income Tax Act and made addition of Rs.24,00,000/-. On appeal the Learned CIT (A) by following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cl. T. vs. M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 allowed the appeal by holding -that share capital/premium of Rs. 24,00,000/- received from the investors was not liable to be treated under Section 68 as unexplained credits and it should not be taxed in the hands of the appellant company. As indicated earlier, the Tribunal below dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cl. T. vs. M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. [supra], we are at one with the Tribunal below that the point involved in this appeal is covered by the said Supreme Court decision in favour of the assessee and thus, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of any substance and is dismissed. 44. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/s. Nishan Indo Commerce Ltd dated 2 December, 2013 in INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.52 OF 2001 wherein the Court held as follows:

“The Assessing Officer was of the view that the increase in share capital by RS.52,03,500/- was nothing but the introduction of the assessee's own undisclosed funds/income into the books of accounts of the assessee company. The Assessing Officer accordingly treated the investment as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) being the First Appellate Authority and contended that the Assessing Officer had no material to show that the share capital was the income of the assessee company and as such the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act was wrong.

38 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after hearing the department and the Assessee Company deleted the addition of Rs. 52, 03,500/- to the income of the assessee company during the Assessment Year in question. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals found that there were as many as 2155 allottees, whose names, addresses and respective shares allocation had been disclosed. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, further found that the Assessee Company received the applications through bankers to the issue, who had been appointed under the guidelines of the Stock Exchange and the Assessee Company had been allotted shares on the basis of allotment approved by the Stock Exchange. The Assessee Company had duly filed the return of allotment with the Registrar of Companies, giving complete particulars of the allottees. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that inquires had confirmed the existence of most of the shareholders at the addresses intimated to the Assessing Officer, but the Assessing Officer took the view that their investment in the Assessee Company was not genuine, on the basis of some extraneous reasons. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) took note of the observation of the Assessing Officer that enquiry conducted by the Income Tax Inspector had revealed that nine persons making applications for 900 shares were not available at the given address and rightly concluded that the total share capital issued by the Assessee Company could not be added as unexplained cash credit under 'Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Moreover, if the nature and source of investment by any shareholder, in shares of the Assessee Company remained unexplained, liability could not be foisted on the company. The concerned shareholders would have to explain the source of their fund. The learned Commissioner on considering the submissions of the, respective parties and considering the materials, found that the Assessing Officer had applied the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act arbitrarily and illegally and in any case without giving the assessee adequate opportunity of representation and/or hearing. Learned Tribunal agreed with the factual findings of the learned Commissioner and accordingly the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and affirmed the decision of the learned Commissioner. Mr. Dutta appearing on behalf of the petitioners cited judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ruby Traders and Exporters Limited reported in 236 (2003) ITR 3000 where a Division Bench of this Court held that when Section 68 is resorted to, it is incumbent on the assessee company to prove and establish the identity of the subscribers, their credit worthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. The aforesaid judgment was rendered in the context of the factual background of the aforesaid case where, despite several opportunities being given to the assessee, nothing was disclosed about the identity of the shareholders. In the instant case, the assessee disclosed the identity and address and particulars of share allocation of the shareholders. It was also found on the facts that all the shareholders were in existence. Only nine shareholders subscribing to about 900 shares out of 6, 12,000 shares were not found available at their addresses, and that too, in course of assessment proceedings in the year 1994, i.e., almost 3 years after the allotment. By an order dated 2nd May, 2001, this Court admitted the appeal on three questions which essentially centre around the question of whether the Appellate Commissioner erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 52, 03, 500/- to the income of the assessee as made by the Assessing Officer. We are of the view that there is no question of law involved in this appeal far less any substantial question of law. The learned Tribunal has concurred with the learned Commissioner on facts and found that there were materials to show that the assessee had disclosed the particulars of the shareholders. The factual findings cannot be interfered with, in appeal. We are of the view

39 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

that once the identity and other relevant particulars of shareholders are disclosed, it is for those shareholders to explain the source of their funds and not for the assessee company to show wherefrom these shareholders obtained funds.” 45. Further, our attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. Leonard Commercial (P) Ltd on 13 June, 2011 in ITAT NO 114 of 2011 wherein the Court held as follows:

“The only question raised in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal below erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.8,52,000/-, Rs. 91,50,000/- and Rs. 13,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of share capital, share application money and investment in HTCCL respectively. After hearing Md. Nizamuddin, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the materials on record, we find that all such application money were received by the assessee by way of account payee cheques and the assessee also disclosed the complete list of shareholders with their complete addresses and GIR Numbers for the relevant assessment years in which share application was contributed. It further appears that all the payments were made by the applicants by account payee cheques. It appears from the Assessing Officers order that his grievance was that the assessee was not willing to produce the parties who had allegedly advanced the fund. In our opinion, both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal below were justified in holding that after disclosure of the full particulars indicated above, the initial onus of the assessee was shifted and it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to enquire whether those particulars were correct or not and if the Assessing Officer was of the view that the particulars supplied were insufficient to detect the real share applicants, to ask for further particulars. The Assessing Officer has not adopted either of the aforesaid courses but has simply blamed the assessee for not producing those share applicants. In our view, in the case before us so long the Assessing Officer was unable to arrive at a finding that the particulars given by the assessee were false, there was no scope of adding those money under section 68 of the Income- tax Act and the Tribunal below rightly held that the onus was validly discharged. We, thus, find that both the authorities below, on consideration of the materials on record, rightly applied the correct law which are required to be applied in the facts of the present case and, thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact based on materials on record. The appeal is, thus, devoid of any substance and is dismissed summarily as it does not involve any substantial question of law.

40 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

the assessee or whether the AO failed to enquire on this issue and 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 23.08.2016 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 proceeding, 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 with the ROC; (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 carried 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 AO’s order for non-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 examine the 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

41 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

unexplained cash credit u/s. 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 gave specific direction in respect of share capital & premium collected by assessee.

42 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

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 transaction, which fact the AO has acknowledged in the reassessment order. [And here we should keep in mind that the First Ld. Pr. CIT’s finding of fact after perusal of original assessment records that assessee in the first round before AO has produced PAN,ROC 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 assessee 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 2011-12 (AY 2012-13), (iv) ITR acknowledgment for AY 2012-13 which the AO acknowledges that he verified the same and thus we note that the identity of the investors were duly furnished by the assessee’s 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 era, 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 Revenue’s departmental data base. We note that all the share subscribing parties filed all the documents called for by the AO [PB-2] and were also examined by the AO along with audited accounts from which these details show their identity. Sl. Name of company CIN PAN ITR filed No. for AY 2012-13 1. M/s. K. R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. U51109WB1994PTC061965 AACCK0101B yes 2. M/s. Kakrania Trading Pvt. U70101WB1994PTC062137 AABCK151611 yes Ltd. 3. M/s. AmbalaTrafin Pvt. Ltd. U67120WB1995PTCO74397 AACCA1184G yes 4. M/s. Subhiksha Pvt. Ltd. U52190WB2011PTC157073 AAPCS2068E yes 5. M/s. Shivarshi Construction U45400WB2011PTC170957 AAQCS7848M yes Pvt. Ltd. 6. M/s. Shivashiv Pvt. Ltd. U74999WB2012PTC 173749 AARCS0094C yes 7. M/s. Flowtop Agency Pvt. U52190WB2012PTC 173352 AABCF9036D yes Ltd.

43 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

44 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

issued notices to share-holders u/s. 133(6) and after perusing their 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 assessee’s. Therefore in the light of the aforesaid documents discussed their identity cannot be disbelieved and the AO’s satisfaction in respect of identity of the shareholders is a possible view and cannot be termed as unsustainable in law or facts.

45 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

(i) 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 which is a Private Limited Company, and which has Permanent Account No. AACCK0101B and CIN U51109WB1994PTC061965 and its Net-worth as on 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.1,30,00,000/-. The payment has been made through banking channel and

46 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

deposit amount of Rs.1,05,00,000/- 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 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 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 applicant had furnished the source of investment made in the assessee-company after getting the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. (ii) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2 pages 38 to 77, the details of share applicant M/s. Kakrania Trading Pvt. Ltd. It is a Private Limited Company which has a PAN AABCK151611and 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/- 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 sum of Rs. 59,00,000/-; and on 7.3.2012 and by cheque on 12.3.2012 Rs. 25 lakh each. There is board resolution for investment in assessee’s 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 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 and thus we note that the assessee had duly discharged its onus to prove the identity of the share applicant by adducing PAN as well as income-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 is noted that the share applicant had furnished the source of

47 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

investment made in the assessee-company after getting the notice under section 133(6) of the Act.

(iii) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2 pages78 to 111, the details 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 company 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 resolution for investment in 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-page 79 to 111 in the PB-II. 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. 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 notice under section 133(6) of the Act. (iv) We note from a perusal of the paper book pages-2,112 to 137, the 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. 45,00,000/- 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 assessee’s company and Share Application Form Bank statement,

48 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

ITR acknowledgement, 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 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. 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.

(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. It is a 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/- and this share 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 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-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 source 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 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 prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions.

49 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

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. (vi) 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. It is a Private Limited Company which has a PAN AARCS0094C and its CIN number is U74999WB2012PTC 173749 and the net worth of this 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 Cheque. There is board resolution for investment in 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-page 161 to 184 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 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 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.

(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 173352and 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 30.03.2012 Rs.4,49,00,000/- through Cheque. . There is board

50 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

resolution for investment in 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-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 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 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. (viii) We note from a perusal of the paper book pages-2,207 to 226 the details of share applicant 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 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 investment in 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-page 208-226 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 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 prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Further, it is noted

51 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

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.

(ix) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 227 to 261 the details of share applicant 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 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 board resolution for investment in 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-page 228 to 261 in the PB. This share applicant regularlyfiled 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 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 happened 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 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. It is a Private Limited Company which has a PAN AACCL2111J and its CIN number is 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 banking channel on 31.03.2012 a sum of Rs.3,80,00,000/-

52 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

through NEFT. There is board resolution for investment in 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-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 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, 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. (xi) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2 pages 284 to 303 the details of share applicant M/s. Subhsree Impex Pvt. Ltd. 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 31.3.2012 Rs.76,66,93,960/- (P.B-2, page-297)and investment 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 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-page 285-303 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 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, 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.

53 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

(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. It is a Private Limited Company which has a PAN AAECM224E 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 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 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.

(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 Share 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 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 of the transactions. Thus from the discussion above, it is noted except the last two investors the other eleven (11) share applicants

54 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

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 133(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.

55 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

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

56 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

57 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

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. CIT – 4 by passing the second revisional order dated 14.03.2019 has substituted the First Pr. CIT’s 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 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 the 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 spells out where 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 very 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-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. CIT without satisfying the condition precedent u/s 263 of the Act has invoked the revisional jurisdiction (second time), so all his actions are ab initio void.

58 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

(c)the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or

Order is pronounced in the open court on 12th August, 2020

Sd/- Sd/- P. M. Jagtap) (Aby. T. Varkey) Vice President Judicial Member Dated :12th August, 2020 Jd.(Sr.P.S.)

59 ITA No.838/Kol/2019 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant –M/s. Amritrashi Infra Pvt. Ltd., C/o SubashAgarwal& Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd floor, Kolkata-700 069. 2 Respondent –Pr. CIT-4, Kolkata. 3. ITO, Ward-12(2), Kolkata. 4. CIT- , Kolkata. 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail)

/True Copy, By order, Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata.