Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (5) TMI 539

nd search happened on 18.02.2013, undisputedly no assessment was pending before the AO and therefore this assessment year is an unabated assessment. Settled position of law is that no addition can be made for an unabated assessment unless incriminating material is unearthed during search qua the assessment year under consideration. Our aforesaid finding is fortified by the decision of KABUL CHAWLA [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Thus in the absence of any incriminating materials, the completed assessment cannot be disturbed Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT:- Only information on the basis of which the addition was made was ITS data for the FY 2006-07 and nothing else. The said ITS data for the relevant year was available to the AO even at the time of original assessment dated 31.12.2009 and therefore it was not a case that any new and incriminating material was unearthed as a consequence of the second search carried out against the assessee u/s 132 in February 2013. We therefore find merit in the contention of the Ld. AR that no incriminating material was found against the assessee which was unearthed qua this assessment year for making the impugned disallowance - D .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

s on sale of fixed assets which was added back again by the AO while passing the order u/s 153A. Taking note of the double disallowance, the CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the same. At the time of hearing the Ld. CIT, DR could not controvert this factual finding of the CIT(A) and in that view of the matter we find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). This ground therefore stands dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - receipt of share application monies from four bodies corporate which inter alia included sum of ₹ 64,45,11,500/- received from M/s. Mundat Securities & Services Pvt. Ltd. - AO disbelieved the genuineness of the transaction principally because in his opinion payer of the application monies was not a group entity belonging to the promoter - HELD THAT:- The AO’s action to single out the subscription monies received from M/s. Mundat Securities & Services Pvt. Ltd for differential treatment. For the reasons discussed in detail in the foregoing therefore we also do not find any merit in the Ld. DR’s pleading to the effect that the matter needs to be restored to the file of the AO for decision afresh. This is particularly in view of the fa .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue of disallowance of ₹ 8,97,950 made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act when no such disallowance was made in original assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act and no incriminating document relating to such disallowance was found during search in case of the assessee company. 3. That the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case and is perverse. 4. At the outset, we will deal with the legal issue that has been raised by the assessee that consequent to the search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on 18.02.2013, in the proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act which were initiated against the assessee, no addition/disallowance could have been made unless there was any live and direct nexus with any incriminating material unearthed during the search. Since the issue raised in Ground No. 1 goes to the root of the matter, we would like to adjudicate this issue first. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its original return of income on 30.10.2007 declaring total income of ₹ 3,81,774/-. Sea .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

order before us happened on 18.02.2013 and thereafter assessment was framed u/s. 153A at ₹ 14,80,850/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed disallowance of ₹ 8,97,950/- in respect of the short payment of TDS u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, made by the AO. In order to adjudicate the legal issue before us, as stated above, we note that when the second search happened on 18.02.2013, undisputedly no assessment was pending before the AO and therefore this assessment year is an unabated assessment. Settled position of law is that no addition can be made for an unabated assessment unless incriminating materialis unearthed during search qua the assessment year under consideration. Our aforesaid finding is fortified by the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the ITA No. 707, 709 & 713 of 2014 CIT Central-III vs. Kabul Chawla, wherein their lordships have held as under: Summary of legal position 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ncriminating material is prerequisite before power could have been exercised u/s 153(C) r.w Section 153(A). In the case before us, the AO has made a disallowance of the expenditure, which was held disclosed, for one reason or the other, but such disallowances made by the AO were upheld by the LD.CIT(A) but the Ld. Tribunal deleted these disallowance. We find no infirmity in the aforesaid Act of the Ld. Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed . 9. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT-2, Kolkata Vs. Salasar Stock Broking Limited (ITAT No. 264 of 2016) dated 24.08.2016 held as under: In this case, the Honorable Jurisdictional High Court observed that the Ld. ITAT, Kolkata was of the opinion that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction u/s 153A of the I.T. Act to reopen the concluded cases when the search & seizure did not disclose any incriminating material. In taking the aforesaid view, the Ld. ITAT relied upon the judgments of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Kabul Chawla in ITA No. 707/2014 dated 28.08.2014. The Court also observed that more or less an identical view has been taken by this Bench in ITA No. 661/2008 in the case of CIT Vs. Veerprabh .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

of the case, the Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the impugned order of the ITAT which requires examination. 4. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. It is noted that the Department had filed a Special Leave Petition in S.L.P (C) No-34554 of 2015 before the Hon ble Apex Court against the above judgment of the Delhi High Court which has since been dismissed. The relevant extracts reported in 380 ITR (st) 64-Ed is as follows: The Hon ble Apex court dismissed the special leave petition filed by the department. The relevant Para as mentioned in the ITR is reproduced as under. Their Lordships MadanB.Lokur and S.A.Bobde JJ dismissed the Department s special leave petition against the judgment dated July 06,2015 of the Delhi High Court in I.T.A No 369 of 2015, whereby the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose since there was a factual finding that no incriminating evidence related to share capital issued was found during the course of search and that the assessing officer was not justified in invoking section 68 of the Act for the purpose of making additions on account of share capital 12. In the light of the aforesaid ratio l .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ently the disallowance of ₹ 8,97,950/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) is held to be legally unsustainable. Even otherwise we find that in the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A); the AO was directed to re-verify the relevant facts from the TAN details and thereafter pass a speaking order. It was brought to our attention that in the order passed u/s 251, after examining the relevant facts, the AO did not retain the disallowance. Therefore even on merits we find the disallowance of ₹ 8,97,950/- to be factually untenable. Accordingly Ground No. 2 of the assessee s appeal is allowed. 13. We find that the Ground No. 1 involved in AY 2007-08 is also involved in the subsequent AYs 2008-09 to 2011-12. A bird s eye view about this factual position for these years (AY 2008-09 to 20.11.2012) are as follows: Asstt. Year Date of filing original return Date of original assessment Asst. Completed u/s. Whether assessment pending on date of search/ abated (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) 2008-09 29.09.2008 31.12.2009 154/143(3) No 2009-10 29.09.2009 28.04.2011 143(3) No 2010-11 14.10.2010 30.12.2011 143(3) No 2011-12 29.09.2011 No regular assessment (time imit for issue of 143(2) dt.30.09.2012 No 2012-13 - .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

and accordingly, has to be reckoned as unabated assessment. Under the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the law is well settled that in case of unabated assessment, the additions which can be roped-in, in the assessments framed u/s.153A, would only be with regard to any incriminating material or evidence unearthed or found during the course of search. If no incriminating material has been found during the course of search, then no addition can be made in the assessment years where assessments had attained finality. The relevant observations and the ratio laid down would be discussed in the later part of this order. 15. Now coming to the ratios laid down by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court, first of all, in the case of Kabul Chawala (supra), the Hon'ble Court after discussing the issue threadbare and analysing the various judgments of different High Courts laid down the following legal proposition in terms of scope of addition which can be made u/s. 153A(1) which are as under:- 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A (1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

lready disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. This judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been followed in several judgments not only by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court but also by other Hon'ble High Court like, Pr. CIT vs. Somaya Construction Pvt. Ltd. 387 ITR 529 (Guj), CIT vs. IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd. 385 ITR 346 (Kar) and CIT vs.Gurinder Singh Bawa reported in 386 ITR 483. In the latest judgment the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT vs. MeetaGutgutia, their Lordships reiterated the same principle after discussing and analyzing catena of decisions including that of Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and Dayawanti Gupta. The Hon'bleHighCourt observed and held as under:- 62. Subsequently, in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v. Devangi alias Rupa {supra), another Bench of the Gujarat High Court reiterated the above legal position following its earlier decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Saumya Construction P. Ltd. {supra) and of this Court in Kabul Chawla (supra). As far as Karnataka High Court is concerned, it has in CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park P. Ltd. {supra) followed the decision of this Court in Kabul Chawla (supra) .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

essed income can be made sans any incriminating material found or unearthed during the course of search. The principle reiterated time and again is that something should be found as a result of search which is incriminating in nature so as to implicate the assessee and acquire jurisdiction to make the addition, because for the completed assessment, or in other words, assessment which are not abated, the Assessing Officer is required to make reassessment u/s.153A which is only possible when any incriminating material has been found during the course of search. 14. Applying the proposition of law which we have applied while deciding Ground No. 1 of the appeal for AY 2007-08, we hold that even in respect of the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2008-09 to 2011-12 being unabated assessments, no addition or disallowance was permissible unless the AO established some tangible and cogent nexus with any incriminating evidence or material found or unearthed qua the assessee, qua the assessment year as a result of search conducted on 18.02.2013. However, the Ld. CIT, DR vehemently contended that the AO has made addition of introduction of share capital in the assessee company based on st .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

eged commission paid in relation thereto amounting to ₹ 45,000/-. The Ld. AR submitted that in the assessment order the AO did not point out any specific incriminating material which was found or unearthed in the course of search with reference to which the additions of ₹ 70,00,000/- & ₹ 45,000/- were made. Drawing our attention to the assessment order for the relevant AY 2008-09, the Ld. AR pointed out that the said additions were based solely with reference to statements allegedly given by some persons alleged to be entry operators. The Ld. AR pointed out that in the assessment order the AO had merely referred to alleged statements recorded from certain persons who had admitted of indulging in providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital to various beneficiaries against receipt of commission. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that the full copies of the statements were never provided to the appellant nor any opportunity of cross-examination was given inspite of repeated requests. He also pointed out that the contents of the alleged statements, which formed the basis of the impugned addition, was neither disclosed to the assessee nor b .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

Ld. CIT DR argued that the additions were justifiably made by the AO because the statements of the entry operators were recorded in the proceedings conducted by the authorized officer of the Investigation Wing. In the statements recorded on oath, these entry operators had admitted of providing accommodation entries in the form of share application monies to various persons inter alia including the assessee. The Ld. DR further argued that mere furnishing of retraction statement without bringing on record cogent material for its withdrawal was not sufficient for the assessee to deny the correctness of the original statements. He therefore submitted that the AO was legally justified in drawing adverse inference against the assessee based on the statements of these entry operators. 17. After giving due consideration to the rival submissions and material available on record, we find merit in the Ld. AR s submission that before the AO made additions with reference to statements recorded from third parties not only the copy of the statement should have been provided to the assessee but also opportunity of cross examination should have been allowed. In the given facts of the case we howev .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ny for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of crossexamination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, order dated 17-3-2005[2005 (187) E.L.T. A33 (S.C.)] was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions. 7. In view the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issui .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

68 of the Act are applicable. 20. From a perusal of the aforesaid summary it is noted that the addition in question is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. It is worthwhile to note that the assessment for AY 2008-09 was originally completed u/s 143(3) and in the course of the said assessment no addition was made u/s. 68 after making enquiries regarding the receipt of share application monies. In that view of the matter we are of considered view that in the order u/s 153A framed consequent to the second search conducted on 18.02.2013; the AO could have disturbed the assessment only if there is any incriminating material unearthed during search qua the said issue. From the assessment order we note that the AO made general reference to the statements recorded from alleged entry operators who had allegedly admitted that the assessee company had utilised accommodation entries through them. We however note that these statements recorded from third parties behind the back of assessee by themselves cannot be construed as incriminating material found in the course of search against the assessee. It was not the case of the Revenue that the persons whose .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

preme Court] wherein it was held as follows: 1. The Revenue has filed the appeal against an order dated 14.11.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in 3761/Del/2011 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2002-03. The question was whether the learned CIT (Appeals) had erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 89 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('ACT') on bogus share capital. But, the issue was whether there was any incriminating material whatsoever found during the search to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. 2. The Court finds that the order of the CIT(Appeals) reveals that there is a factual finding that "no incriminating evidence related to share capital issued was found during the course of search as is manifest from the order of the AO." Consequently, it was held that the AO was not justified in invoking Section 68 of the Act for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital. 3. As far as the above facts are concerned, there is nothing shown to the court to persuade and hold that the above factual determination is perverse. Conseque .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

nt material to make the additions. No question of law arises. 22. Coming to the alleged cash trail, we note that none of the materials gathered by the AO by way of bank account copies of various companies supposed to be part of the chain of companies was confronted to the assessee. The statements that were recorded from directors of some of these entities, which inter alia formed part of this alleged chain, were also not brought on record. We note that no evidence was brought on record to prove that the cash deposited in bank accounts of entities forming part of this trail either belonged to the assessee company or originated from the assessee. Moreover, no material whatsoever was brought on record to demonstrate that the alleged cash deposit made in the bank accounts of third parties actually belonged to the assessee company or was provided by the assessee company. No opportunity to cross-examine any of these entities was provided to the assessee. The bank statements based on which the cash trail was prepared were part of the disclosed documents/accounts and therefore cannot be held as incriminating material. Thus, we note that during the search and seizure operation conducted u/s .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

rification of the ITS details with the books of accounts and passing the order afresh. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the Ld. AR brought to our attention that in the order u/s 251 passed by the AO found that the ITS data reconciled with the books of accounts. The AO, being satisfied that no addition on this count was warranted, himself deleted the addition of ₹ 63,81,702/- in the order passed giving effect to the directions of the Ld. CIT(A). Besides the Ld. AR also submitted that in the assessment u/s 143(3), such disallowance was not made and no incriminating document or evidence was found in the course of search on 18.02.2013 to justify the addition made on account of undisclosed interest on deposits. The Ld. CIT, DR could not controvert these factual aspects of the matter. After considering the rival submissions, we note that the issue involved stands in favour of the assessee in view of the factual findings given by the AO in his order u/s 251 of the Act. We also find merit in the primary contention of the assessee that such addition was legally untenable as the AO was unable to correlate the same with any incriminating document or evidence found in the course of .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

stored these issues back to the AO for verification and passing the order afresh. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the Ld. AR brought to our attention that in the order passed u/s 251 the AO being satisfied with the assessee s explanations, himself refrained from retaining these additions in the total income assessed in the order passed u/s 251 of the Act. Besides the Ld. AR also submitted that in the original assessment u/s 143(3), such disallowances were not made and no incriminating document or evidence was found in the course of search on 18.02.2013 to justify these additions. The Ld. CIT, DR could not controvert the factual aspects of the matter. After considering the rival submissions, we note that the issues involved stand decided in favour of the assessee in view of the factual findings given by the AO in his order u/s 251 of the Act. We also find merit in the primary contention of the assessee that these additions were legally untenable as the AO was unable to correlate them with any incriminating document or evidence found in the course of search. For the reasons set out in the foregoing, Ground Nos. 9 to 12 of the assessee s appeal stands allowed and Ground Nos. 1 & .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

A) and in that view of the matter we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). This ground therefore stands dismissed. 29. Now we proceed to adjudicate the cross appeals for AY 2011-12 being ITA (SS) Nos. 28/Kol/2016 & 40/Kol/2016. In Ground Nos. 2 to 4 of the assessee s appeal and Ground Nos. 2 of the Revenue s appeal; the issues involved relates to (a) disallowance of ₹ 55,97,91,262/- u/s 40(a)(ia) & (b) addition of ₹ 109,95,00,000/- on account of evasion of railway freight. At the onset it was brought to our attention that in the impugned order the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the said issues at his end but restored these issues back to the AO for verification and passing the order afresh. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the Ld. AR brought to our attention that in the order passed u/s 251 the AO being satisfied with the assessee s explanation, himself refrained from retaining those additions in the total income assessed in the order passed u/s 251 of the Act. Besides the Ld. AR also submitted that no incriminating document or evidence was found in the course of search on 18.02.2013 to justify these additions. The Ld. CIT, DR could n .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

um of ₹ 64,45,11,500/- received from M/s. Mundat Securities & Services Pvt. Ltd that the AO disbelieved the genuineness of the transaction principally because in his opinion payer of the application monies was not a group entity belonging to the promoter. The AO thereafter proceeded to examine the source of the monies received by M/s. Mundat Securities & Services Pvt. Ltd and after discussing the sources of sources the AO came to conclusion that he was able to identify the cash deposits to the extent of ₹ 9,16,95,000/-. These facts in AO s opinion established his conclusion that the appellant was unable to explain the genuineness of the transaction. The AO also supported his conclusion on the premise that no prudent businessman would invest substantial funds by way of subscription to equity capital at huge premium. According to AO the entire transaction lacked commercial substance and therefore he concluded that the amount received by the appellant from M/s. Mundat Securities & Services Pvt. Ltd was assessable as income u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition. Being aggrieved .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

e AO s order be confirmed or in the alternative the matter be restored to the file of AO for verification of facts. 33. After considering the facts on record and the documents placed before us, we find that admittedly the assessment records of the share applicant, M/s. Mundat Securities & Services Pvt. Ltd were transferred to the charge of the Dy.CIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata only because search u/s 132 was conducted on 18.02.2013 in Rashmi Group. It is a wellestablished practice for the Income-tax Department to centralize all cases belonging to any one Group which is subjected to search & seizure proceedings u/s 132 of the Act. We also note that not only the assessment records of M/s. Mundat Securities & Services Pvt. Ltd was transferred to the charge of the DCIT, CC 2(2), Kol but the proceedings u/s 153C were also taken up against the share applicant on the ground that some incriminating material or books of accounts or documents belonging to the said company were found in the course of search conducted against Rashmi Group to which the appellant as well as the share applicant belonged. On these facts therefore we find merit in the Ld. AR s primary submissions the share appli .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ooks of accounts belonging to the company were found & seized in the course of search in the case of Rashmi Group . We also note that the case records of M/s. Mundat Securities & Services Pvt. Ltd were transferred to the charge of DCIT, CC 2(2), Kol i.e. the present respondent in the present appeal pursuant to the search conducted in case of the Rashmi Group . These facts considered cumulatively lend credence to the Ld. AR s contention that M/s. Mundat Securities & Services Pvt. Ltd was also a group entity and belonging to promoter category because almost 28.78% of the fresh issue was subscribed by M/s. Mundat Securities & Services Pvt. Ltd. We therefore do not find any consistency in the AO s action to single out the subscription monies received from M/s. Mundat Securities & Services Pvt. Ltd for differential treatment. For the reasons discussed in detail in the foregoing therefore we also do not find any merit in the Ld. DR s pleading to the effect that the matter needs to be restored to the file of the AO for decision afresh. This is particularly in view of the fact that in the orders u/s 153C/143(3), the AO of M/s. Mundat Securities & Services Pvt. Ltd h .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). This ground therefore stands dismissed. 37. Now we take up the cross appeals for AY 2013-14 in ITA (SS) Nos. 30/Kol/2016 & 42/Kol/2016. Ground No.1 of the Revenue s appeal is against the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) setting aside the addition of ₹ 35,85,00,000/- made u/s 68 and returning the same back to the file of the AO for verification of facts. Brief facts of the case are that during the FY 2012-13 the appellant raised share application monies of ₹ 162,84,85,000/- from nine bodies corporate through private placement which inter alia included sum of ₹ 35,85,00,000/- received from M/s. Pragya Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. In the course of assessment proceedings the AO had required the assessee to establish identity, creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of these transactions. In the impugned order the AO noted that the share application monies to the extent of ₹ 126,99,85,000/- was received from eight entities and this was found to be genuine. It is only in respect of the sum of ₹ 35,85,00,000/- received from M/s. Pragya Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd Ltd that the AO disbelieved the genuineness of the transaction on the .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

. CIT(A). 39. After giving thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case, we agree with the preliminary objection of the Ld. CIT, DR but at the same time we are of the opinion that there is no fetter on the powers of the Tribunal to direct re-examination of relevant facts by the AO. The Legislature has not curtailed the powers of the Tribunal to set aside any issue to the file of the AO, if the facts of the case warrant such re-examination. In the instant case, we note that the impugned addition of ₹ 35,85,00,000/- was made by the AO on the ground that the assessee was unable to establish identity & creditworthiness of the share applicant and genuineness of the transaction. We note that for the AY 2013-14 the ITO Ward 1(1), Kolkata passed order u/s 143(3) assessing total income at ₹ 51,57,01,340/- on substantive basis. The said assessment order supported the Ld. AR s contention that the identity of the share applicant had been accepted by the Department and therefore regular assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. We also find merit in the Ld. CIT(A) s finding that if the addition has been made in the hands of the share applicant company then no addition .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||