9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act') and the Notice dated 22nd June, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2016-17. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order has been passed without considering the Assessee's reply dated 6th June, 2022. He states that Rs.17.70 Crores, which is the income alleged to have escaped assessment was in fact added in the income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer ('AO') in the original assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 30th December, 2018. He states that the assessment order determined the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. This Court finds that the petitioner has not brought on record any material on record to establish that the reassessment proceedings are being undertaken in an arbitrary manner. The respondent issued a show cause notice dated 23rd May, 2022, wherein it is stated that : "3......... In the present case, information was received on insight portal that assessee company has taken bogus/fictitious share capital from bogus companies of M/s. BDR Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd amounting to Rs.17.70 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FMV as per the provisions of Act. In many cases such persons lack creditworthiness as well which is discussed in details in subsequent chapters." (Emphasis supplied) 5. 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. 6. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, I agree with the A.O that the funds received on sale of shares of a company who is a accommodation entry provider cannot be treated as explained fund." (Emphasis supplied) 7. This Court therefore does not find any merit in the submission of the petitioner that the doubt cast on the genuineness of the amount of Rs.17.70 Crores infused by the shareholders of the assessee from their receipts from M/s BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., which is alleged to be an entry provider of bogus capital, is not new information. During the course of earlier 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
