TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection against notice u/s 148 is proper, since the objection of the assessee has been appropriately dealt with by the ITO and therefore, the order is not bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the ITO of making addition of Rs. 15,00,0001- u/s 68 of the Act, being the share application money on the alleged ground that the amount is unexplained cash credit although the existence, identity and credit worthiness of the share applicant was established by the assessee. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in holding that by not providing copies of the statement of Mr. Narendra R Shah and by not allowing the opportunity to cross examining him to the assessee, natural justice has not been denied to the assessee and therefore, the re- opening which is solely based on the letter of Mr. Narendra R Shah to CIT(A)-37, Mumbai and the addition of Rs. 15,00,0001- are not bad in law. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is closely held company, engaged in the business of gold jewellery. The assessee filed original return of income which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of G. K. N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer in (2003) 259 ITR 19. The assessee in the course of reassessment proceedings, submitted that payment of Rs. 15 lakhs was received from M/s Surya Deep Salt Refinery and Chemical Works Ltd. towards share application money vide through banking channel, copy of board resolution along with share application, copy of accounts of M/s Surya Deep Salt Refinery and Chemical Works Ltd. with an explanation that the said company has share capital of Rs. 8 crores which is sufficient to prove the creditworthiness of the said company. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the genuineness of the transaction and notice u/s 133(6) was issued to M/s Surya Deep Salt Refinery and Chemical Works Ltd., to furnish the details of transaction. The said company i.e. M/s Surya Deep Salt Refinery and Chemical Works Ltd. did not furnish the details of transactions with the assessee to the Assessing Officer in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction and assessee reiterated the same contention as were made earlier. The ld. Assessing Officer rejected th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act but no information was received and none appeared in response to said notices. The Assessing Officer furnished the copy of letter written by Shri Narendra R. Shah along with the list of beneficiary submitted by him to CIT(A)-37, was forwarded to CIT(A) along with remand report. The CIT(A) forwarded the remand report along with documents to the assessee. The assessee also did not produce the above parties. Thus, it was observed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) that sufficient opportunity was given. The said party Shri Narendra R. Shah has confirmed before the Revenue that he has received cash against the share application money of Rs. 15 lakh given to the assessee. With respect to the share holding of investment of Rs. 3,42,25,000/- as on 31/03/2004 held by M/s Surya Deep Salt Refinery and Chemical Works Ltd, it was observed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) that the balance sheet of M/s Surya Deep Salt Refinery and Chemical Works Ltd. did not contain the names of the various companies/concerns in which investments are made. Thus, the CIT (A) came to the conclusion that assessee has not substantiated the genuineness of the transaction, credit worthin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also drawn to page no. 156 of the paper book, which is in order sheet entry, which clearly shows that the Assessing Officer never perused the records. Our attention was also drawn to page 161 to 163, wherein the proposal to CIT was submitted by the Assessing Officer for seeking approval for reopening. It was submitted that these are the additional pleas raised by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal and since these are legal plea, which goes to the root of the matter, the same should be allowed to be argued. It was further submitted that no amount has been received by the assessee from Shri Narendra R. Shah and assessee is not aware how Shri Narendra R. Shah is connected with M/s Surya Deep Salt Refinery and Chemical Works Ltd.. Statement of Shri Narendra R. Shah has not been provided to the assessee nor any connection was established between Narendra R. Shah and said M/s Surya Deep Salt Refinery and Chemical Works Ltd. and merely based upon the statement/letter given by Shri Narendra R. Shah, during appellate proceeding, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. The assessee was also not allowed to cross examine said Narendra R. Shah, which is a direct ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nuineness of the transaction, which remain uncomplied with. Further summons were issued u/s 131 of the Act by the Assessing Officer and again there was no compliance with respect to these summons. The assessee was asked to produce the party, which assessee failed to do so during the proceedings before the authorities below. The assessee has submitted copies of share application, bank statement, detail of PAN of M/s Surya Deep Salt Refinery and Chemical Works Ltd., however, in view of the incriminating evidence/by way of statement of Shri Narendra R. Shah, the Revenue has doubted the genuineness of the transaction. Once the Revenue has doubted the genuineness of the transaction, the onus shifts back to the assessee to prove by the cogent evidences/material that the above said transaction in shares was genuine. The assessee during the course of proceedings before us has raised legal issues which goes to the root of the matter that the Assessing Officer has does not have the original records of the assessment and also that no approval of CIT was taken before reopening of the assessment. Further contention was raised that the statement of Shri Narendera R. Shah was not provided to the ....