TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r clearly indicates that the AO without making any sort of inquiry has rejected the evidence filed by the assessee on the basis of conjectures and assumptions. Facts being so, we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - want of approval of satisfaction for re-opening the case from the competent authority as required u/s 151 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the return of income originally filed by the assessee on 30.09.2009 was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act -In the instant case, the AO has rightly issued notice u/s 148 for reopening the return of income processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly we dismiss the cross-objection filed by the assessee. - ITA N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating that this share application money was received from companies which are Balance-Sheet heavy and of little economic significance. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing to delete the addition of ₹ 7,00,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the same is covered by the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Major Metals Vs. Union of India wherein the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd. (2008) 319 ITR 5 (SC)has been duly discussed and distinguished. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed its return of income for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share is done at the value of ₹ 1004.81. Further, the AO has mentioned that the assessee filed before him details such as balance sheet, profit and loss account and ITR of the parties for the relevant period. However, the AO was not convinced with the above submission of the assessee for the reason that the creditworthiness of the investors is not proved and given the past performance of the company, the share premium is highly suspicious. Referring to section 68 of the act and relying on various case laws, the AO made an addition of ₹ 70,000,000/- received as share capital and share premium as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er appeal. 2. Notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 dt.28.3.14. 3. ITO's letter dt. 06.02.15 furnishing the reasons recorded for re-opening of the assessment. 4. Appellant's letter dt. 09.02.15 objecting to the reasons recorded for re-opening of the assessment. 5. ITO s letter dt. 05.03.15 disposing off the objections to the reasons recorded for re-opening of the assessment. 6. Appellant's AR's letter dt.11.03.15 furnishing details in the course of re-assessment proceedings together with relevant details supporting with regard to issue of shares at a premium. 7. Appellant's AR's letter dt. 17.03.15 together with annexures with regard to justification for issue of shares at a premium ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stment was out of the share capital received by them and all the share applicants are bodies corporate who are regularly filing their return of income with the department and annual returns with the ROC and are shown as active on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Thus it is submitted by him that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) both on the validity of assumption of jurisdiction as well as on merits have to be sustained. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. It is well settled that in order to discharge the onus u/s 68 of the, the assessee must prove the following : (i) the identity of the creditor, (ii) the capacity of the creditor to advance money; and (iii) th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is further stated that reopening of the assessment is not permitted for a fishing or roving inquiry. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that the AO has rightly reopened the return of income which was processed originally u/s 143(1) of the Act. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In the instant case, the return of income originally filed by the assessee on 30.09.2009 was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) analyzed the distinction between the acceptance of a return u/s 143(1) and an assessment which is framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the former case, the AO would have much ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
