TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of 4 years did not meet the jurisdictional requirement u/s 147 of the Act. - decided in favour of assessee Addition u/s 68 - receipt of share capital - information alleging accommodation entry received from Investigation Wing - AO disallowed 56,800 shares were issued to the 5 parties out of the 2,30,000 equity shares issued - AO had not issued notices u/s 133(6) for verification - ITAT held that once the Assessee had discharged the initial onus by furnishing a necessary document to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants, the onus shifted on to the Revenue - HELD THAT:- This Court is not persuaded to take a different view in the matter. Indeed with the Assessee having furnished the complete details of the 5 part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness. It filed its return of income for the AY in question declaring a loss of ₹ 48,770/-. The return was picked up for scrutiny and completed under Section 143(3) of the Act accepting the return income by an order dated 29th November 2007. 4. According to the Revenue, the investigation wing provided information that the Assessee had indulged in accommodation entries which came to light during the post search investigations while examining the seized records of Shri S.K.Jain Group of Companies. A notice under Section 148 of the Act was accordingly issued to the Assessee on 30th March 2012. The objections raised by the Assessee to the reopening of assessment were rejected by the AO. 5. The AO asked the Assessee to exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 132 of the Act and, therefore, the assessment proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153(C) of the Act. It is further noted that all details with regard to the share applications received by the Assessee were on the record of the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment after expiry of 4 years was held to be not justified. The addition was deleted on merits also. 9. The ITAT has in the impugned order affirmed the above order of the CIT (A). It has concurred with the CIT (A) on both grounds. The details of the information provided by the Assessee to the AO have been discussed by the ITAT. There were several parties from who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
