TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 423
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss objection are as under:- I.T.A. 1125/Del/2012 (Department's appeal): 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.21.42 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has ignored the facts that the notices have been received by the assessee and proceedings were attended by the counsel of the assessee. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has ignored the facts that the assessee has not submitted the details in response to various notices issued by the Assessing Officer. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hearing does not include a right to cross examination. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. C.O. No. 107/Del/2012 (Assessee's appeal): 1. The CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has rightly reopened the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income on 31st October, 2002 declaring income of Rs.59,580/-.The case was reopen vide issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and re- assessment was completed at Rs. 22,01,580/- u/s 147/144 of the Act and the following additions were made:- 1. Rs..6,00,300/- On the basis of information from DIT (Inv.) that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d." 5. Regarding merits of the case, the Ld AR submitted the following submissions:- i) That loans were received by appellant through banking channel from directors, their wives and parents only and that all are income tax payees and has been filing returns since last year. ii) That the identity of the lender is duly proved, they are income tax assessee and also either working as director or are father or mother or wife of director. iii) That creditworthiness of lender is also proved as they had declared source of income and are filing income tax return. iv) That the appellant had given interest on the amount of loan and had deducted TDS thereon. 6. After hearing the arguments of ld AR and after obtaining remand report from the Assessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... share applicants' existence is recognized as the company is in the records of the IT Department, since the appellant has submitted their PAN and also copies of Income tax records. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Limited 116 CTR 185 in its order dated 11.01.2008 has held as under:- "Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961. We find no merit in this special leave petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus share holders whose names are given to the Assessing Officer then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments according with law. Hence, we find no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry which was dated 26th March, 2001 and which he argued related to assessment year 2001-02 and not 2002-03. 10. The Ld AR further argued that the assessee had no bank account with Punjab National Bank or Jai Lakshmi Bank. He also took us to page 177 of paper book where balance sheet of the company as on 31.3.2002 was placed. He invited our attention to the fact that there was net increase in share capital to the extent of Rs. 5.70,000/- only and not Rs. 9,73,000/- as alleged and added back by the Assessing Officer. In view of the above fact, Ld AR argued that notices u/s 147/148 were issued without application of mind and therefore entire re-assessment is bad in law. 11. The Ld DR relied on the order of Ld CIT(A) regarding reopening of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e additional information/document he can call it as per provisions of Rule 46A. Therefore, ld CIT(A) had rightly accepted the additional evidence. He further argued that additional evidence was admitted only after calling remand report from the Assessing Officer. Regarding merits of the case the Ld AR argued that assessee had received only Rs. 5,70,000/- as share application money whereas the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs. 9,73,000/-. He took us to page 177 of paper book where he invited our attention to the fact that the difference between the share capital of 31.3.2001 and 31.1.2002 is only Rs. 5,70,000/- and not Rs. 9,73,000/-. He further argued that all amounts of share application money were received through A/c payee chequ....