Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

As per the these facts, the addition has been made because as per the AO, the existence of the investor company could not be established. However such inference was drawn by the Ld. AO on the basis of the inquiry at the incorrect address. No adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee on the basis of these facts. In any case, I find that no adverse facts have been brought on record by causing any inquiry by the AO. Assessee has furnished all the documents such as ROC certificate with the address of the investor company, share on, bank statement, ITR of the investor. The identity is established by PAN and ROC certificate. Once the assessee has discharged its onus, the onus shifts on the AO to make enquires/investigation to establish that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investor has not been established. M/s Modakpriya is duly registered with ROC and having registered office at 3 Mango Lane Kolkata and it possess the registration numbers allotted by the ROC. This proves the existence of the company. As per bank statements payments have received by the assessee from investor through banking channel. Therefore, genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted. Without finding any fault in the documents furnished by the appellant, no adverse finding can be made by the AO. Where the assessee has furnished details of creditors and their confirmation and the AO did not make any inquiry and no effort was made to pursue so called creditors, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable [ CIT vs Orissa Corporation Pvt Ltd 159 ITR 78 SC]. On similar lines honourable Gauhati HC in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT 264 ITR 254 held that where the assessee has furnished confirmation and other records of creditors. and established identity, genuineness and creditworthiness, he has discharged his burden and no addition can be made. In the present case the Ld AO made inquiry at incorrect address. Thus ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

14. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) took strong note of the fact that the verification carried out by the A.O. about the existence of the share applicant/subscriber company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata was carried out at the back of the assessee company and findings were never confronted to it. The ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. CIT(Appeals) had also observed that while the correct address of the investor company was "Mango Lane, Kolkata", the report filed by the Income Tax Inspector was, in turn, based on the inquiry carried out at the wrong address, i.e. "Synagogue Street, Kolkata". Referring to the notice issued u/s. 142(1), dated 08.03.2016 issued by the A.O to the assessee company which as stated in the assessment order was returned by the postal authority, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the said observation of the A.O was incorrect as the said notice was not received by the assessee company. The CIT(Appeals) was further of the view that now when the assessee's counsel was regularly appearing before the A.O., then, in all fairness, he ought to have brought the fact as regards returning of the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 08.03.2016 to the notice of the assessee company so that necessary compliance could have been affected. Referring to the observation of the A.O. that the assessee company had refused to receive notice u/s. 142(1) dated 08.03.2016, thus, it could safely be inferred that the same was purposively done to evade production of the share applicant/subscriber company, the CIT(Appeals) observed that as the assessee's address at "Pachpedi Naka, Raipur" remained the same and all earlier correspondence by the A.O were duly served and complied with, therefore, it was incomprehensible that the notice u/s. 142(1) dated 08.03.2016 could not be served at the same address. As regards the report of the Income Tax Inspector about the unavailability of the share applicant/subscriber company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata at its address, i.e. 8th Floor, Room ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. No.814, 4 Synagogue Street, Kolkata, West Bengal-700 001, the CIT(Appeals) observed that as earlier intimated by the assessee while furnishing the details of the share applicant/subscriber as "Annexure-11, Para-18" of his reply dated Nil (filed with the A.O on 04.12.2015) the address of the investor company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata was changed from "Synagogue Street, Kolkata (old address)" to "Mango Lane, 4th Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal-700 001". Considering the aforesaid facts, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the A.O. despite being well aware of the change of address of the share applicant/subscriber company had chosen to look for its availability at its old address. It was, thus, observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the availability of the investor company could not be gathered by the A.O for the reason that the necessary inquiries were carried out at an incorrect address, i.e., the old address of the assessee company.

16. Based on his aforesaid deliberations, the CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the adverse inferences drawn by the A.O as regards the existence of the investor company could not be sustained for the reason that the same was based on an inquiry carried out by the department at an incorrect address. Also, the CIT(Appeals) observed that as the assessee company had placed on record all the supporting documentary evidence, viz. copy of the share application forms, bank statement, copies of the return of income, ROC certificate, audited financial statements of the investor company, therefore, the onus that cast upon it as regards proving the identity and creditworthiness of the said share applicant/subscriber company as well as genuineness of the transaction of having received share application money from the said investor company stood discharged. The CIT(Appeals), further observed ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. that now that the assessee company had placed on record confirmation of the investor company, which had not been dislodged by the A.O., therefore, no adverse inferences could be drawn as regards the authenticity of the transaction under consideration. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) after relying upon a host of judicial pronouncements concluded that the recharacterizing of the share application money received by the assessee company as an unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act by the A.O., merely on suspicion, could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down.