ITO, WD-2(1), SILIGURI, DARJEELING vs. M/S O.S. A. S. DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., SILIGURI

After hearing both the parties we find that Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at ₹2,00,00,000/- as against nil income. The Assessing Officer treated a sum of ₹2,00,00,000/- said to have been found credited in the books of assessee as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short ‘the Act’. It is also noted that AO issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to three entities i.e., Dewdrops Mercantile (P) Ltd, Pragya Commodities (P) Ltd and Samrat Finvestors (P) Ltd. to verify share application money and share premium thereof. It is noted that A.Y 2012-13 ITO Wd-2(1), Slg. Vs. M/s O.S.A.S. Developers Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 details such as PAN, Acknowledgement of IT returns, relevant portion of bank statement, copy of audited accounts regarding the said three entities were filed before AO during the course of assessment proceedings and on examination of such details the AO asked the assessee to produce directors of the said companies for explaining account statements and their creditworthiness. The AO added said sum in the hands of assessee for non production of directors of investing companies and by doubting the creditworthiness. The contention of the Ld. AR is that the AO did not provide sufficient time to produce the directors of investing companies and referred to note sheet of AO placed at page 6&7 of paper book and submitted that the AO recorded the statement of director of the assessee on 17-03-2015 and issued notice u/sec 131 of the Act on 19-03-2015. The AR of the assessee sought adjournment on 26-03-2015 by stating that the director of the assessee i.e. Sri Sunil Kumar Lohia was unwell and referred to page no-7 of paper book and argued that the AO without considering same and basing on the Inspector’s report passed assessment order on 30-03-2015 and there was no opportunity for the assessee in the assessment proceedings and prayed to remand the matter to the file of AO for his fresh consideration. The Ld DR did not controvert the same. On perusal of the record we find force in the arguments of the Ld AR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of AO for his fresh consideration and the assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, before the AO. Therefore, order of CIT(A) is set aside. Grounds raised

3. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on /07/2018 Sd/- Sd/- (लेखा सद!य) (#या$यक सद!य) (P.M.Jagtap) (S.S.Viswanethra Ravi) Accountant Member Judicial Member *Dkp-Sr.PS