AMBASSADOR VINCOM (P) LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

It emerges at the outset that assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 63 days’ delay in filing. It has placed on record its condonation petition dated 06.10.2017 solemnly averring the in-charge person’s ill health therein on account of fever, jaundice and weakness. Relevant medical certificate to this Ambassador Vincom (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-3(3), Kol. Page 2 effect has also been enclosed. The Revenue very fair in not disputing correctness thereof during the course of hearing. We accordingly condone the impugned delay of 63 days in filing therefore since the same neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of ill health of assessee’s in-charge person. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits

It is evident that the CIT(A) has passed his lower appellate order ex parte whilst affirming the Assessing Officer’s action treating its share capital and premium of ₹2,83,59,000/- to be unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contends that the assessee had not proved its case by proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors concerned which made both the lower authorities to add the same u/s. 68 of the Act. We find no merit in these submissions. It is evident that CIT(A)’s findings nowhere discuss either the issue involved or a detailed adjudication on the assessee’s grievance as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Same is the factual position in assessment order dated 30.03.2015 as well wherein the Assessing Officer appears to have been highly swayed by the so-called hefty premium amount received by the assessee from its investors followed by non-production thereof in the course of scrutiny in response to section 131 notices. The assessment order in question makes it clear that there is not even an iota of discussion about assessee’s books and other details in support of its share capital and premium forming part of records in the nature of income tax returns acknowledgements, bank statement, balance-sheet, profit and loss account(s) of the investors in issue. We therefore deem it appropriate in this backdrop of facts that larger interest would be met in case the instant issue is restored back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication as per law in line with those tribunal’s lead order in ITA 1104/Kol/2014 dated 30.07.2015 approving the CIT’s section 263 directions to the assessing authority concerned to conduct independent enquiry(ies) in case if the share capital / premium investors; upheld by hon'ble jurisdictional high court as well a hon'ble Ambassador Vincom (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-3(3), Kol. Page 3 apex court. It is made clear that the Assessing Officer shall conduct independent through inquiries about the investors parties by taking recourse to the relevant proceedings in line with the above judicial precedents.