TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer to submit copies of the reply of the assessee filed during the course of the original assessment proceedings and related documents submitted by the assessee. Thus during the course of original assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had made elaborate enquiry to examine the share application money in the light of section 68 of the Act and after satisfying himself he accepted the same as genuine. Therefore, in our considered opinion in the light of the proviso to section 147 of the Act there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclosed fully and truly all material facts relating to the assessment - assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act has been rightly quashed by the CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.6288/DEL/2015, Cross objection No.180/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 2-1-2019 - Sh. N. K. Billaiya, Accountant Member And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Sh. Rajesh Jain, FCA ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: ITA No.6288/Del/2015 and Co.No.180/Del/2017 are appeal by revenue and cross objection by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd The company has shown to have raised share capital allotting shares to the following companies apart from the infusion of share capita from the directors and family members: S. 0. Name Financial Year Amount (Rs.) 1 M/s Ribbel Manufacturing and Exporters Pvt Ltd 2006-07 15,00,000/- 2 M/s APT Properties Pvt Ltd 2006-07 25,00,000/- 3 M/s Scient Informatics I Pvt Ltd ml 2006-07 17,50,000/- 4 M/s Multitech Semiconductors Pvt Ltd 2006-07 20,00,000/- 5 M/s Brainsoft Info consultants Pvt Ltd 2006-07 2,00,000/- 6 M/s Chardhan Impex Pvt Ltd 2006-07 25,00,000/- 7 M/s Shweta Mehapdi Products Pvt Ltd 2006-07 25,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.19 9.99 Please explain from whom the share application money of ₹ 13.47 Crs_ (Rs.15.19 Crs- ₹ 1.72 Crs) were raised, how and when same were raised ? I will furnish the relevant details a week s time. We are sitting in your office, please check the account of the company M/s. KADHPL for the Financial Year 2010-11 and furnish the relevant detail. Recording of statement resumed at 5.45 AM on 18.08.2013. Q.30 Please state whether M/s. KAD Housing Private Limited has entered into any financial transaction with M/s. Salwan Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Fair N Square Exports Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Ribbel Manufactures and Exports Pvt. Ltd. M/s. APT Properties Pvt Ltd. M/s. Scient Informatics I Pvt Ltd. M/s. Multitech Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Brainsoft Info consultants Pvt Ltd. M./s. Chardhan Impex Pvt Ltd if yes, please provide relevant detail. Ans : As per memory it seems to me that I have heard the name of these companies and M/.s. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to furnish its return of income. The assessee in response to the notice u/s 148 filed a letter dated 17.06.2014 stating that the return filed u/s 139 may be treated as compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter the Assessing Officer issued statutory notice u/s 142 (1) and 143 (2) of the Act alongwith a questionnaire. 8. On perusal of the balancesheet of the assessee, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has raised share capital and / or allotted to the following companies and received amounts mentioned each:- S. No. Name F.Y Amount 1 M/s. Ribbel Manufacturing and Exporters Private Limited 2006-07 15,00,000/- 2 M/s. APT Properties Private Limited 2006-07 25,00,000/- 3 M/s. Scient Informatics (I) Private Limited 2006-07 40,00,000/- 4 M/s. Multitech Semiconductors Private Limiied 2006-07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000 10 25,00,000 6. Multitech Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. 2,00,000 10 20,00,000 7. Tejasvi Investment Pvt. Ltd. 1,50,000 10 15,00,000 8. Chardhan Impex Pvt. Ltd. 2,50,000 10 25,00,000 1,25,00,000 60,00,000 10. The Assessing Officer examined these details and came to the conclusion that the amount received by the assessee company is nothing but it is own unaccounted money introduced in its books of accounts in the form of share application money and added the entire amount u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained credits. 11. The assessee agitated the matter before the CIT(A) strongly contending that the reassessment is bad in law in as much as in the original assessment proceedings all the details were filed before the Assessing Officer which were examined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of CIT Vs. Viniyas Finance and Investment (P) Ltd. wherein the Hon ble High Court held as under :- 7. On going through the purported reasons we find that there is no mention of the respondent-assessee not having made a full and true disclosure of the material facts necessary for assessment. On the contrary the purported reasons indicate that the amounts mentioned therein had been shown in the books of accounts as receipts from the companies mentioned therein. We also note that at serial No.5 of the list of companies from which amounts have been allegedly received, the name of the assessee has been shown. This means that the assessee received the received money from itself, which can hardly be an allegation in this case. 8. For the foregoing reasons we feel that the Tribunal has approached the matter in the correct perspective and has held the issuance of the notice under Section 148 dated 30.7.2007 to be bad in law and so, too, all the proceedings pursuant thereto. There is no reason for us to interfere with the impugned order inasmuch as no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 16. We find that during the course of the original assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... collected by the Assessing Officer in response to the notice u/s 133 (6) of the Act are the same documents which were filed by the assessee during the course of the original assessment proceedings. 22. Considering the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment as mentioned elsewhere and considering the facts in totality in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act we are of the considered opinion that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law and therefore the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act has been rightly quashed by the CIT(A). No interference is called for ground No.2 and 3 are dismissed. The other grounds become otiose. 23. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Co. No.180/Del/2017 The cross objection of the assessee is late by 596 days. In its request for condonation of delay the assessee has filed the affidavit of the director stating that counsel did not advise the assessee to file cross objection after receiving the intimation that the revenue has filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). 24. We find that the reason of delay as cited by the assessee is flimsy. Moreover, the regular counsel who did not advis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
