2017 (11) TMI 1785

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment order dated 13.11.2014 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 declaring a total income of Rs. 12,49,429/-. The scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was completed accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. 3. Subsequently, on verification of the assessment order, it was observed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax that the assessee-company has obtained accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 2,18,00,000/-from Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and its concerns. It was further noticed that this issue was not properly verified by the Assessing Officer during reassessment proceedings under section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd [ITA No. 1613 of 2014] wherein it was held that the proviso to section 68 is prospective and that no addition could be made in the hands of the appellant company on account of share capital and share premium for the assessment year under consideration." 5. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 87 days in filing the present appeal and the assessee has filed application for condnation of delay on the ground that the impugned order dated 30th March 2017 was received on 4th. April 2017. Thereafter the assessee filed a writ petition against the said order in the Hon'ble High Court. The said writ was later on withdrawn and due to the said reason the present appeal could n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the application and condoned the delay of 87 days in filing the present appeal. 7. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. Commissioner has passed the impugned order without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since the order has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice, the same is liable to be set aside. The Ld. Counsel further submitted the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in CIT vs. M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No 1613 of 2014). 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that since the notice was duly served upon the assessee, there is no reason to either set-aside or to send the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for f....