Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1886 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Revising the completed assessment under section 143(3) on the issue that the sum of receipt consisting of share capital and share premium from a company Secunderabad Healthcare Ltd. - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has filed complete details of all share holders of the company with full name and address of all share holders along with details of PAN. Even while completing assessment for AY 2012-13, all these details were filed before the AO regarding allotment of 1.40 lakhs shares at a premium to Secunderabad Healthcare Ltd. and all details resolution copies, bank statements, payment of call money letters and PAN Card Xerox were filed. We are of the view that in the given facts of the present case the issue is covered on merits in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd.[2017 (7) TMI 613 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein honorable High court has considered the decision of division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd [2017 (3) TMI 1263 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] & Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd [2008 (1) TMI 575 - SC ORDER]. Revision order passed by PCIT under section 263 of the Act is not sustainable because the very basis of the order is that as per the information received from DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai the assessee company is one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entry of bogus share premium from Secunderabad Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., the company operated by Shirish Shah, the company has been declared as shell company. We find that the PCIT has no where brought on record what was the information with him in regard to this aspect and how the receipts in the shape of share application money from Secunderabad Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. is part of bogus share premium as alleged by the PCIT. The assessment order framed by the AO is neither prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue nor erroneous for the reason that this information was not available at the time of framing assessment if at all it is true and for this the order cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hence, we are of the view that the revision order be cannot be sustained and accordingly, quash. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|