2019 (12) TMI 1189 - ITAT DELHI

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- AO has followed the due procedure of law and also had specific information in his possession, received from the DIT(Inv.) which indicated that certain amounts had been received in the form of bogus share capital/premium/loan from Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain who were entry operators.

AO has elaborately discussed in the assessment order as to how the amounts received in the form of share capital/share premium etc, had not been properly examined at the time of earlier assessment and also how this information was fresh information and specific in nature, which clearly indicated that there was omission/failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.

AO has also relied upon various judicial pronouncements stated in the assessment order to highlight such omission or failure to disclosed fully and truly all material facts what clearly justified reopening of the assessment beyond four years.

In the present case there was enough evidence and justification with the AO to reopen the assessment beyond period of four years. It has been widely held by the Courts that it is not necessary to prove beyond doubt that income has escaped assessment and it is sufficient that the AO has recorded his reasons and followed the due procedure of law for reopening of the assessment. In .view of factual matrix of the present case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the AO that this was a fit case for reopening of the assessment and accordingly the contentions and Grounds of the appellant are dismissed.

Addition on account of share capital and share premium - In the factual matrix of the present case, where entries had been taken from paper companies and Credit worthiness of the Parties as well as the genuineness of the transaction had not been discharged by the appellant, there was no justification to accept the contentions of the AR Of the appellant that the additions were not justified. Accordingly, after careful consideration of the facts of 'the present case, there is no material or submissions provided by the AR of the appellant, which calls for any interference In the decisions of the AO. Accordingly, this addition of ₹ 90 Lacs made by the AO is upheld. These Grounds are therefore dismissed.