TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SHRI MANISH BORAD, JJ. Appellant by Shri M.D. Kabra Shri J.N. Sharma, A.Rs Respondent by Shri K.G. Goyal, D.R. KUL BHARAT, J. This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A)-2, Indore dated 29.12.2017 pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the illegal reopening of the tax assessment for A. Y. 2009-10 made u/s 147/148 of Income tax in absence of any fresh/new/tangible material being brought on record. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding a wholly illegal reopening proceedings under sec. 147/148 of the Act, as no reopening is permissible in law in absence of any charge of escapement of income, but merely for carrying out verification as mentioned by the Ld. A.O. in the office note recorded below assessment order for A. Y. 2012-13. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding an invalid reassessment order which was vitiated due to not passing of a speaking order disposing off the objections to 'reasons recorded' as mandated in GKN Driveshafts (Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present appeal are that case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/ s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') on 30.3.2016. Thereafter, the assessment was framed u/ s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 20.12.2016. The A.O. made addition of ₹ 1,64,00,000/- in respect of share application money as in the opinion of the A.O., the assessee could not prove genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the share applicant companies. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) , who after considering the submissions sustained the addition and thereby the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has taken grounds in respect of the legality of the assessment in the form of additional grounds as well as on merit of the additions. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has taken against legality of the reopening of assessment in the form of ground Nos. 1, 2 3 and the additional grounds. The additional grounds so raised are as under: 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted numbered 54. The Ld. A.O. neither pointed out any deficiency in the said information nor called for any additional information. The assessment for A. Y. 2012-13 was completed on 30.3.2015 at Total income of ₹ 7,51,967/- as against returned income of ₹ 6,86,200/-. However, in the office note recorded below the assessment order, it was mentioned that the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for verification of share premium received at ₹ 1,64,00,000/- For about 1 year from the date of submission of information mentioned above till 29.3.2016, there was no communication from the A.O. He further contended that on 30.3.2016 notice u/ s 148 was received by the assessee company regarding escapement of income for the assessment year 2009-10. In response thereto, the assessee company filed IT return on 24.6.2016 declaring the same total income which was shown in the original return filed on 23.9.2009. The Ld. A.O. supplied a copy of reasons recorded for initiating the reassessment proceedings. He pointed out that it can be seen from para 5 that the A.O. had referred to the compliance made by the assessee company in response to notice dated 16. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 30.11.2016, vide order sheet entry, the Ld. A.O. recorded about un-served letters and no response from others. Vide the same order sheet entry, the Ld. A.O. confronted the assessee's counsel about the same. The Ld. A.O. did not ask the appellant company either to get the letters served or to produce the directors of the share applicant companies. The Ld. A.O. did not consider the evidences given by the appellant company about identity of the subscriber companies, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions and passed the assessment order on 20.12.2016 raising demand of ₹ 1,07,86,910/-. Thus, the enquiry was initiated by dispatching letters u/ s 133(6) on 24.11.2016 mostly at old addresses and was concluded within 6 days on 30.11.2016 merely on the basis of non service of some letters and no response from others. The appellant company was only intimated about it and not even asked to submit any response. Thus, the huge addition of ₹ 1,64,OO,OOO/ was made without giving any opportunity whatsoever and blatantly violating the principle of natural justice. The Ld. A.O. has even not mentioned the section under which the addition is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce at the time of their application for share application money. These companies continue to be in existence even now. He submitted that Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the search report submitted by the assessee company in this regard. It was further contended that the Government has not deregistered any of the said companies. The said companies are not paper or shell companies as has been presumed by the Id. A.O. and endorsed by the Ld. CIT(A). the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the detailed table given by the appellant company about non service of letter in each case. These subscriber companies got introduced to the appellant company because both the Directors are related to Mr. Radheshyam Maheshwari, age 74 who was earlier residing in Kolkata. While residing in Kolkata, he was a very senior officer in companies owned and managed by Bangur family. As he was originally from Indore, he used to entertain guests, relatives and friends from Indore. At Kolkata, he was a member of Bharat Chamber of Commerce, FICCI, ASSOCHAM and other associations. It is because of this that the assessee company got introduced to the subscribing companies. He further contended that regardin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .O. We find before the Ld. CIT(A) also the assessee had raised an objection regarding not addressing all the issues raised in the objection by the assessee. However, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the objection in para 4.0 of his order by observing as under: 4.0 This ground of appeal is with regard to reopening of the assessment u/ s 147. I have gone through the assessment order as well as the reasons for reopening of the assessment u/ s 147 of the Income Tax Act. The A.O. has clearly outlined the reasons which the appellant himself has produced as Annexure-Z The A.O. has mentioned that a sum of ₹ 1, had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 which was received by the appellant as share application money from Kolkata based companies. Thus, it is seen that the A.O. has categorically recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment proceedings and hence I don't find any merit in the contention of the appellant. This ground of appeal is accordingly dismissed. 8. On the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A), it is clear that all the objections so raised by the assessee were not addressed by the Ld. CIT(A). During the proceedings before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
