The assesse filed the return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 declaring the total loss of Rs. 283/- which was processed u/s 143(1). Thereafter, Ld. Assessing officer reopened the assessment wherein transaction of share capital and share premium was the subject matter of verification. The re-assessment was completed under u/s 143 r.w.s 147 of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 17,720/-. This re-assessment was subjected to revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act by the Ld. CIT on the ground that the Ld. AO had not properly enquired and verified the genuineness and source of application money/share capital as well as identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders who had applied for the shares of the company. Accordingly, Ld. CIT set aside the order passed by the Ld. AO with certain specific guidelines regarding investigation to be carried out while assessing the assessee de-novo.  The Ld. AO in consequential proceedings giving effect to the order of CIT called for the certain details from the assessee. There was no response from the assesse. Ld. AO observed that assesse failed in proving the genuineness of the transaction as well as the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders. Accordingly, Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 7,65,00,000/- to the total income of the assesse as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. On appeal before CIT (A), Ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (A), assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. The Tribunal observed that entire transaction of share capital and share premium was subject matter of verification in the reassessment proceedings wherein the assessee had responded to the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act. The Ld. CIT in the revision order had specifically directed the Ld. AO to make inquiries directly from the shareholders and not through the assesse. Hence, non-appearance of the assessee or non-submission of details before the Ld. AO does not make any relevance. The Tribunal held that the Ld. AO did not resort to make inquiries in the manner stated by the Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act in-spite of the fact that all the necessary details were available before him. The Ld. CIT had directed the Ld. AO to investigate in to the multiple layers of the investment in shares made by shareholders and identify the ultimate person holding the controlling interest including the change in shareholding, directorship etc. and then take the entire matter to the logical conclusion to bring out the facts on record. However, same had not been done by the Ld. AO and hence, the matter was remanded back to the file of AO for de novo assessment and to decide the matter as mandated by the Ld. CIT in section 263 order. (ITA No. 509/Kol/ 2018 dt. 01.01.2019 ( AY. 2008-09)