TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the contention that the assessment order passed by the AO in the absence of notice under section 143(2) is bad in law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the contention of the appellant that the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of share capital received from Thar Steel Pvt. Ltd. is not legally sustainable during the year under consideration as this amount was not received during the year. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both V on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of share capital received from Bhavani Portfolio Ltd despite the assessee bringing all material facts and evidences in support of its contention. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 3. Ground Nos. 1 & 7 are general in nature and Ground No. 3 was not pressed, so these grounds do not req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee in the computation of income filed alongwith return of income. Therefore, there was no reason to form an opinion that a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- had escaped assessment. It was contended that in the reasons recorded, there was no reference to any statement or any evidence on the basis of which a satisfaction had been reached by the AO. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment merely on the basis of doubt was unjustified and legally untenable. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437 (SC) • ITO Vs Dwarka Dass & Bros. 131 ITR 571 (Del.) • United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT & Ors. 258 ITR 317 (Del.) • IAC Vs Nasik Eggs. Enterprises 42 ITD 105 (Pune) • Raja Bahadur Motilal Pvt. Ltd. Vs K.R. Vishwanathan, ITO & Ano 183 ITR 80 (Bom.) • C.D. Singh Vs ITO (2002) 77 TTJ 282 (AII-Tri) • Panchananhati Vs CIT 115 ITR 336 (Cal.) • Sheonarain Jaiswal Vs ITO 1989 (1796) ITR 352 (Pat.) • Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) • CST Vs Bhagwan Industries (P) Ltd. (1973) 31 STC 293 (SC) •....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompanies which was a mere belief as the AO never put on the record any evidence supporting his contention. It was also pointed out that the AO issued notices to the parties u/s 133(6) of the Act which were duly replied by them and that the assessee had produced the following details with regard to every transaction related to the share capital/application money: "a) PAN details b) Certificate of incorporation c) Copy of Memorandum and Articles of Association d) Audited Balance sheet & profit and Loss A/c e) Copy of Share Application Form f) Copy of Compliance Certificate from C.S." 8. It was contended that the assessee had discharged primary onus to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the share applicant. Therefore, no addition could have been made on the basis of material collected at the back of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) • CIT Vs Steller Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC) • CIT Vs Sophia Finance Ltd. (1993) 205 ITR 98 (Del.) • CIT Vs Achal Investments ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat any income had escaped assessment. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Pr. CIT Vs Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 • Pr. CIT Vs RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 5 • Pr. CIT Vs G & G Pharma India Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del.) • Sabharwal Properties Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (2016) 382 ITR 547 (Del.) • CIT Vs Independent Media Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 108/2015 order dated 19.11.2015 • ITO Vs Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 4613/Del/2010 order dated 24.08.2016 • Pr. CIT Vs G & G Pharma Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.) 11. In his rival submissions, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders passed by the authorities below and reiterated the observations made therein. 12. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the AO reopened the assessment only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing i.e. from the Addl. DIT, (Investigation)-IV, Jhandewalen Extension, New Delhi. In the present case, the AO had the reason for belief that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... statement that the entry was given to the assessee on his paying "unaccounted cash" was not disclosed. Who was the accommodation entry giver and how he could be said to be a "known entry operator" were not mentioned. The source for all the conclusions was the investigation report. The tangible material which formed the basis for the belief that income had escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons. The reasons failed to demonstrate the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer had not independently considered the tangible material which formed the basis for the reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. No error had been committed by the Appellate Tribunal in concluding that the initiation of the reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 to reopen the assessments for the assessment year 2004-05, was not legal." 15. On a similar issue the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 5 (supra) held as under: "That no link between the tangible material and the formation of the reasons to b....