Held that the  summons issued twice by the Assessing Officer were returned unserved and the report of the inspector proved that no such companies existed at the address given by the assessee. The assessee did not give any other addresses of the shareholders. The financial position of the share applicants lacked any credence. Even the director of the assessee was not produced. The reason for surrender of the sum by the assessee and forfeiture of the share application money immediately in the succeeding year was not explained.  The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not sustainable. (AY. 2012-13)