2015 (6) TMI 882

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ory provisions as per section 147. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in entertaining fresh evidence without affording any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine those evidences. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. 4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,94,850/- on account of expenses incurred out of unexplained cash credit. 5. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking provisions of Section 145 of the Act. 6. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 06.10.2007 in Appeal No.61/05-06 allowed the appeal of the assessee company both on the preliminary issue relating to reopening of the assessment and as well as on merits of the addition. Being aggrieved, the revenue had come up present appeal before us. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued that the CIT(A) was not justified in holding the reassessment proceeding to be in valid, in as much as the original assessment was made only u/s 143(1) of the Act. He also placed reliance on the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). He further argued that the CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cash form for share application money certainly forms belief that income escaped assessment. In this kind of transaction it is the duty of Assessing Officer to give a finding in whose hand such sum is taxable. Now it is settled law that in case where it appears to the Assessing Officer that certain income has been received during the relevant assessment year but it is not clear who has received that income and, prima facie, it appears that the income may have been received either by A or B or by both together, it would be open to the relevant income tax authorities to determine the said question by taking appropriate proceedings both against A and B" [Chhotolal Haridas Vs. M.D. Karnik, (1961) 43 ITR 387, 392 (SC); Sidh Gopal Gajanad Vs. IT....