Revenue disputed only the proof of identity of the shareholderThe decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as well as ITA T Kolkata Bench on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the assessee also supports the view that for non production of directors of the investor company for examination by the AO it cannot be held that the identity of a limited company has not been established. For the reasons given above we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. "
Thus, in the light of the judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Apex/High court/Tribunal, we are of the view that the action/view taken by the AO after enquiry made by him as per the direction of the Ld. Pr. CIT in the set aside proceedings dated 12.05.2016 pursuant to which the AO has reassessed the assessee after inquiry and accepted the share capital and premium collected by assessee is a plausible view and cannot be held to be unsustainable view in facts or law, therefore, the impugned action of the Ld. Pr. CIT to interfere with the reassessment order of the AO, is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
24. Therefore, in the light of the discussion on fact as well as on law, we are of the considered opinion that AO’s action (reassessment) pursuant to the first revisional order of Ld. Pr. CIT dated 12.05.2016, to accept the share capital and premium as a possible view in facts and law as per the ratio laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) the AO’s action/reassessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the condition precedent for usurping revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is absent and, therefore, the Ld. Pr. CIT lacked jurisdiction to assume second time revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee succeeds on the legal issue raised and, therefore, on the facts and circumstances discussed (supra), we are inclined to quash the impugned order of Ld. Pr. CIT dated 14.03.2019.
25. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed
Sec. 68 & 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961— Revision - The appeal preferred by the assessee is against the second round of the action of exercising of revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act by the Pr. CIT-4, Kolkata for AY 2012-13. During the reassessment proceeding pursuant to the first revisional order under section 263 of the Act dated 12.05.2016 and pursuant to the specific directions of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the AO in the second round had summoned the directors of shareholders as well as that of assessee and examined the books and the bank statement and other documents furnished by them to discharge the onus on them about the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions and the AO recorded their statement during reassessment proceedings wherein he has questioned and elicited answers about the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction as well as the source of the investment etc. So, from the aforesaid actions carried out by the AO during the reassessment proceeding cannot be found fault with for lack of enquiry. Thus, the AO’s view to accept the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital and premium collected from the share subscribers as a plausible view and at any rate cannot be termed as an unsustainable view on law or facts. Thus, the order of CIT of exercising of revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is set aside. - INTENT DEALERS PVT. LTD. V/s ITO - [2020] 23 ITCD Online 117 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Revenue disputed only the proof of identity of the shareholderThe decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as well as ITA T Kolkata Bench on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the assessee also supports the view that for non production of directors of the investor company for examination by the AO it cannot be held that the identity of a limited company has not been established. For the reasons given above we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. "
Thus, in the light of the judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Apex/High court/Tribunal, we are of the view that the action/view taken by the AO after enquiry made by him as per the direction of the Ld. Pr. CIT in the set aside proceedings dated 12.05.2016 pursuant to which the AO has reassessed the assessee after inquiry and accepted the share capital and premium collected by assessee is a plausible view and cannot be held to be unsustainable view in facts or law, therefore, the impugned action of the Ld. Pr. CIT to interfere with the reassessment order of the AO, is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
24. Therefore, in the light of the discussion on fact as well as on law, we are of the considered opinion that AO’s action (reassessment) pursuant to the first revisional order of Ld. Pr. CIT dated 12.05.2016, to accept the share capital and premium as a possible view in facts and law as per the ratio laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) the AO’s action/reassessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the condition precedent for usurping revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is absent and, therefore, the Ld. Pr. CIT lacked jurisdiction to assume second time revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee succeeds on the legal issue raised and, therefore, on the facts and circumstances discussed (supra), we are inclined to quash the impugned order of Ld. Pr. CIT dated 14.03.2019.
25. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed
Sec. 68 & 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961— Revision - The appeal preferred by the assessee is against the second round of the action of exercising of revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act by the Pr. CIT-4, Kolkata for AY 2012-13. During the reassessment proceeding pursuant to the first revisional order under section 263 of the Act dated 12.05.2016 and pursuant to the specific directions of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the AO in the second round had summoned the directors of shareholders as well as that of assessee and examined the books and the bank statement and other documents furnished by them to discharge the onus on them about the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions and the AO recorded their statement during reassessment proceedings wherein he has questioned and elicited answers about the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction as well as the source of the investment etc. So, from the aforesaid actions carried out by the AO during the reassessment proceeding cannot be found fault with for lack of enquiry. Thus, the AO’s view to accept the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital and premium collected from the share subscribers as a plausible view and at any rate cannot be termed as an unsustainable view on law or facts. Thus, the order of CIT of exercising of revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is set aside. - INTENT DEALERS PVT. LTD. V/s ITO - [2020] 23 ITCD Online 117 (ITAT-KOLKATA)