TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there was no cash deposit in this accounts and there was sufficient balance available to make investment in share capital of the assessee company and that the bank statement of the companies itself cannot determine the creditworthiness of the company, in-fact, the reference has to be made to the balance sheet whereas there is no satisfaction of the ld. Pr.CIT in this regard. Pr.CIT relating to sources of source, it is seen that the documentary evidences furnished along with supporting evidences such as bank statement, audited statement of account, balance sheet, profit and loss account, clearly established the fact that the tangible net worth of the disputed companies was more than sufficient and was much more than the amount investe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013-14. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under :- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 and further erred in holding the assessment order dated 21/03/2016 erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the action of Ld. Pr. CIT in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 and passing the impugned order under this section is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in holding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said query was replied by the assessee vide point no.1 vide its letter dated 01.12.2015 (APB, Pg. No.21 to 26); that second query was raised by the Assessing Officer vide point no.1 vide its letter dated 21.12.2015 in order to justify the share premium received by the assessee company on allotment of shares (APB, Pg. No.27 to 28); that in compliance to the specific query, the assessee had duly submitted a specific reply vide letter dated 04.01.2016 (APB, Pg. No.29 to 31) and that detailed enquiry as enshrined under the Act was carried out and information u/s 133(6) of the Act were called for by the Assessing Officer (APB, Pg. No.32 to 34) where in response to the said notice u/s 133(6), the following documentary evidences were submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs u/s 263 of the Act when there is absence of enquiry at the end of the Assessing Officer but he cannot invoke provisions of section 263 of the Act to substitute the Assessing Officer s enquiries already done by the Assessing Officer in the present case. 6. The ld. counsel for the assessee also submitted that before holding an order to be erroneous, the ld. Pr.CIT ought to have verified from the assessment order that the finding given by the Assessing Officer are based on documentary evidences were being filed in compliance to queries raised in the show cause notices issued to the assessee on the issue under dispute, before arriving at the view that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT, (2017) 51 CCH 0473. (iii) Sangeeta Jain vs. PCIT, (2018) 52 CCH 0101. 8. It is noted that the identity of the share subscribers was established on the basis of material evidence filed before the Assessing Officer in the form of PAN, Address, Income Tax Return, Audited Report, Bank Statements, MOA, AOA and Certificate of Incorporation. The creditworthiness of the investor companies could be verified from the tangible net worth of the companies being more than sufficient other than the amount invested in the shares of the assessee company and the share application has been received through proper banking channel duly supported by the share application forms. Therefore, the genuineness o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal in the case of Zion Promoters Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Adll.CIT, (2018) 52 CCH 0137, contended that there was no allegation/adverse material brought on record contrary to evidences filed. 12. Similarly, on the observation of Pr.CIT relating to sources of source, it is seen that the documentary evidences furnished along with supporting evidences such as bank statement, audited statement of account, balance sheet, profit and loss account, clearly established the fact that the tangible net worth of the disputed companies was more than sufficient and was much more than the amount invested in the shares of the assessee company. Therefore, the source of source of investment has been established by the assessee and after being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
