DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI , NEW DELHI vs. PLB INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , NEW DELHI

Grounds raised by the Revenue are as under :

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the case of M/s SRM Securities Pvt. Ltd. is not accepted by the department and the same is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for adjudication.

We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused materials on record. The issue raised in this appeal is identical to the issue raised in Revenue’s appeal No. 1594/Del/2021 in case of PAM Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. decided vide order of the even date. While deciding the issue Tribunal has held as under:

As discussed earlier, the assessee has furnished copies of share applications, PAN cards, Income-tax returns, audited balance sheets, bank statements of the investors. However, based on certain adverse material collected through search and seizure operation and post search enquiry, the Assessing Officer has rejected the evidences furnished by the assessee and treated the investments as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. When the matter went upto the Tribunal, the assessee pleaded that neither adverse materials such as statements recorded from the directors of the investor companies and other entities as well as the information collected through notices under section 133(6) of the Act were confronted to the assessee nor proper opportunity was given to rebut the contents of adverse materials. Considering the aforesaid factual position, which remained uncontroverted, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after complying with the requirement of Rules of Natural Justice. However, on a reading of the fresh assessment order passed in pursuance to the directions of the Tribunal, it is evident that the Assessing Officer has not complied with the directions of the Tribunal in letter and spirit. Pertinently, though in the body of assessment order, the Assessing Officer has reproduced the specific directions of the Tribunal and has also stated that the Tribunal has remanded the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessment order does not mention whether outcome of the notices under section 133(6) was ever confronted to the assessee or the copies of statements were supplied nor was the assessment record produced before the Bench, however, he did not comply with the specific directions.

It is also relevant to observe, in paragraph No. 6 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer himself has noted that in course of fresh assessment proceedings, the assessee had again requested for copies of statements/enquiries and adverse materials. However, the Assessing Officer has brushed aside such request of the assessee by merely stating that such argument of the assessee is not relevant, as the main reason for addition was assessee’s failure to satisfactorily prove the identity and creditworthiness of the alleged share holders and the genuineness of the transactions. He also declined to share the information of any enquiry conducted through notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act with the assessee. This act on the part of the Assessing Officer, in our view, is in clear violation of the directions of the Tribunal.

It is to be noted that while considering assessee’s appeal arising out of the original assessment proceedings, the Tribunal in has passed order on 22.01.2018 restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer. The reason being, before the Tribunal, the assessee specifically pleaded that the assessment order was passed without allowing adequate opportunity and without confronting the adverse materials collected behind the back of the assessee. It was also pleaded that the result of discrete enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer was never confronted to the assessee. The Tribunal has also noted the fact that though the Bench wanted to verify the relevant facts by examining the assessment record, however, learned Departmental Representative expressed his inability to produce the assessment record, which compelled the Bench to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer with specific directions. 15. It is also relevant to observe that it is not a case where in the second round, learned first appellate authority has not conducted any enquiry. On the contrary, learned first appellate authority had again called upon the Assessing Officer to verify the evidences furnished by the assessee and furnish a remand report. However, on a perusal of the remand report dated 21.02.2020 furnished by the Assessing Officer, a copy of which is placed in the paper book, it is observed, instead of doing any fresh enquiry, the Assessing Officer has called upon the assessee to furnish further information. Thus, in our view, the Assessing Officer has acted in a totally irresponsible manner in complying with the directions of the Tribunal. Therefore, in our view, case law cited by learned Departmental Representative will not fit into the facts of the present appeal, hence, would be of no help to the Revenue.

The facts, being identical, the decision taken in would apply mutatis mutandis in this appeal as well.

In the result, appeal is dismissed.