TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground why we cannot allow the AO to act on such notice. This is so because in the original scrutiny the assessment, the AO had examined the issue on which he now wants to reopen the assessment. In the reasons recorded he had referred to the authorized capital of the assessee-company of ₹ 4 crores representing 40 lakhs shares of ₹ 10/each, out of which 39 lakhs 90 thousand shares were issued at the premium of ₹ 145 per share. He has recorded that no details as to how the share premium was worked out at ₹ 145 per share was produced on record. It was on account of this that AO held the belief that the share premium sum of ₹ 57.85 crores (rounded off) had escaped assessment. AO now cannot have second innings an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company was incorporated on 16.07.2010 i.e. in the F.Y. 2010-11 and the A.Y. 2011-12 was the first assessment year. It is seen that the authorized capital of the assessee company is ₹ 4,00,00,000/(40,00,000 shares of ₹ 10 each). Out of this 39,90,000 shares were issued at a premium of ₹ 145/per share (total share premium 57,85,50,000/). However, no details as to how the share premium was worked out at ₹ 145/per share are on record. The assessee has to explain the claim and source of the credit entry in the books of accounts. It means explaining the source alone is not enough but the nature should also be explained. If the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory, then the amount of share premium ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t enough but the nature should also be explained. If the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory, then the amount of share premium need to be taxed. Therefore, if the assessee explains that the amount received is share premium, but there is no justification for quantum of premium, then it can safely be held that nature of premium is not proved. In the present case the nature of premium is not proved. 6. In the light of the above, there is an escapement of income on account of failure to examine this issue amounting to ₹ 57,85,50,000/, which should have been brought to tax. 7. In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax, to the tune of ₹ 1,00,000/or more has escaped as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer had examined the issue on which he now wants to reopen the assessment. In the reasons recorded he had referred to the authorized capital of the assessee-company of ₹ 4 crores representing 40 lakhs shares of ₹ 10/each, out of which 39 lakhs 90 thousand shares were issued at the premium of ₹ 145 per share. He has recorded that no details as to how the share premium was worked out at ₹ 145 per share was produced on record. It was on account of this that Assessing Officer held the belief that the share premium sum of ₹ 57.85 crores (rounded off) had escaped assessment. In the order of assessment itself, after putting the petitioner to notice, the Assessing Officer had made limited disallowance on this g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
