Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (8) TMI 36

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t of Rs. 7,93,50,000 by any prudent businessman. Accordingly, the AO treated the assessee to be a shell company, which is used to launder money as reflected in the books of account. Assessee failed to substantiate the huge investment by purchasing shares at a premium of Rs. 10,000 per share having a face value of Rs. 100 of a loss-making company. Therefore, in the absence of any contradictory material being available on record to controvert the aforesaid findings recorded by the lower authorities, grounds raised in assessee s appeal are dismissed. Ex-parte order u/s 250 - non affording any opportunity of being heard in the matter which is against the principles of natural justice and hence the order passed be quashed - HELD THAT:- A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Representative ( learned DR ) and based on the material available on record. 3. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. On the facts circumstances of the case and in law the authorities have erred in passing an ex-pate order u/s 250 without affording any opportunity of being heard in the matter which is against the principles of natural justice and hence the order passed be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the making/sustaining Rs. 3,19,00,000/- being the investment made by appellant treating as un- explained investment u/s 69 and the reasons assigned for doing so, were wholly wrong inconsistent with the facts of the case and not in accordance with the provision of the Income Tax Act, 196 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai as well as the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai that the assessee has invested/purchased shares at a premium of Rs. 10,000 per share with the face value of Rs. 100 from M/s Parvesh Construction Ltd., which is a loss-making company and has also received share application money of Rs. 7,93,50,000, when it has no sale/receipts and only income from other sources of Rs. 8000 has been offered to tax, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated and notice under section 148 dated 30/03/2016 was issued to the assessee. During the proceedings under section 147 of the Act, the assessee was asked to furnish details/documents/information to explain the natu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... isation of the assessment proceedings, no submission was received from the share applicants in response to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act. The AO, vide assessment order, held that since the assessee was having no business activity at its premises, no prudent businessman or company will invest in the shares of a company in which the net worth is negligible and the company is defunct and inoperative. Accordingly, the AO treated the receipt of share application money of Rs. 7,93,50,000 as unexplained cash credit in the books of the assessee and added the same to the total income under section 68 of the Act. 6. We find that even during the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), despite issuance of various notices .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 100 of a loss-making company. Therefore, in the absence of any contradictory material being available on record to controvert the aforesaid findings recorded by the lower authorities, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) requires no interference and, therefore, is upheld. Accordingly, grounds no. 2 and 3 raised in assessee s appeal are dismissed. 8. As regards ground no.1, no material has been brought on record to justify non-compliance with the various notices of hearing issued by the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the appeal filed by the assessee was decided on the basis of material available on record. As a result, ground no.1 raised in asse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates