TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roup and enclosed the survey report for the review of the AO The present reassessment proceedings have been initiated in pursuance of the aforesaid letter and survey report, which, as per the AO, shows that the funds received by the assessee as share capital from M/s BDR Builders Developers Pvt. Ltd. are not genuine. As regards the petitioner s contention that this precise issue of source of its share capital was examined during original assessment proceedings prima facie appears to be incorrect. In fact, a perusal of the order of CIT(A) reveals that while examining and verifying the veracity of the source of funds received by the petitioner herein from Rajesh Gupta HUF and Shri Sanchit Gupta, as share capital, the CIT(A) presumed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions cannot be determined in these proceedings. The allegation of the petitioner, that its reply was not considered by the AO, is incorrect. The said reply has been noted and dealt with in the impugned order. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is challenging the impugned order on merits. The veracity of the contention of Revenue that M/s BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. has provided bogus/fictitious capital to the petitioner herein cannot be examined in the writ proceedings. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. v. Chhabil Das Agarwal [ 2013 (8) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT] ] has held that the Act of 1961 provides complete machinery for assessment/reassessment of tax, the assessee is not permitted to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxable income of the assessee at Rs.89,37,17,920/-, after making a total addition of Rs.88,30,29,000/- under Section 68 of the Act, which included the said sum of Rs.17.70 Crores. He states that the said assessment order has been a subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ). The ITAT vide order dated 26th April, 2021 in ITA No. 7653/Del/2019 allowed the appeal of the assessee and the additions were deleted. He therefore states that the information alleging that the assessee has received bogus or fictitious share capital from bogus companies of M/s BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.17.70 Crores is not new information and is not relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 Crores. The petitioner was provided with letter dated 30th March, 2022 of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi, along with the Notice dated 23rd May, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The said letter identified the petitioner herein with reference to information collated during a survey action carried out on the BDR Group and enclosed the survey report for the review of the AO. The relevant extract of the said letter is reproduced hereinbelow:- 3. Several companies of the BDR Group have received huge funds in the form of share premium from many dubious persons/entities over the years. The statement of dummy directors like Shri K C Gupta and Shri Rajesh Verma were recorded during survey wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment proceedings prima facie appears to be incorrect. In fact, a perusal of the order of CIT(A) reveals that while examining and verifying the veracity of the source of funds received by the petitioner herein from Rajesh Gupta HUF and Shri Sanchit Gupta, as share capital, the CIT(A) presumed that the funds received by the said shareholders from M/s BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. were genuine and on the said assumption, the said additions were deleted. The CIT (A), in fact, relied upon the confirmations issued by M/s BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. as valid to arrive at the aforesaid finding in respect of Rajesh Gupta (HUF). The relevant portion of the order of the CIT(A) with respect to Shri Sanchit Gupta reads as follows:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er assessment proceedings, the authorities did not suspect the funds received by assessee s shareholders in its transactions with M/s BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and relied upon the confirmations issued by the said company to hold it as genuine. The contention of revenue that M/s BDR Builders Developers Pvt. Ltd. uses layered transactions and banking channels to provide bogus share capital from bogus companies and the assessee and its shareholders are beneficiaries of the said transactions is factual and the same will have to be examined by the AO. 8. The petitioner does not dispute that the funds received by it as share capital were raised by its shareholders from M/s BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and therefore the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
