TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 and further erred in holding the assessment order dated 21/03/2016 erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the action of Ld. Pr. CIT in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 and passing the impugned order under this section is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in holding that assessment order is erroneous due to alleged lack of enquiry on the part of the AO in examining the creditworthiness of shareholders and genuineness of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts letter dated 21.12.2015 in order to justify the share premium received by the assessee company on allotment of shares (APB, Pg. No.27 to 28); that in compliance to the specific query, the assessee had duly submitted a specific reply vide letter dated 04.01.2016 (APB, Pg. No.29 to 31) and that detailed enquiry as enshrined under the Act was carried out and information u/s 133(6) of the Act were called for by the Assessing Officer (APB, Pg. No.32 to 34) where in response to the said notice u/s 133(6), the following documentary evidences were submitted by the respective share subscribers before the Assessing Officer (APB, Pg. No.35 to 87) :- (a) Acknowledgement for filing of Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2013-14. (b) Copy of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case. 6. The ld. counsel for the assessee also submitted that before holding an order to be erroneous, the ld. Pr.CIT ought to have verified from the assessment order that the finding given by the Assessing Officer are based on documentary evidences were being filed in compliance to queries raised in the show cause notices issued to the assessee on the issue under dispute, before arriving at the view that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous by any stretch of imagination and as the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue" u/s 263 of the Act, has to be read in conjunction with the expression 'erroneous', therefore, the assumption of j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax Return, Audited Report, Bank Statements, MOA, AOA and Certificate of Incorporation. The creditworthiness of the investor companies could be verified from the tangible net worth of the companies being more than sufficient other than the amount invested in the shares of the assessee company and the share application has been received through proper banking channel duly supported by the share application forms. Therefore, the genuineness of the transactions is proved beyond the doubt. For this purpose, the assessee relied on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Zion Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Adll.CIT, (2018) 52 CCH 0137. 9. Per contra, the ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the impugned order. 10. We have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orting evidences such as bank statement, audited statement of account, balance sheet, profit and loss account, clearly established the fact that the tangible net worth of the disputed companies was more than sufficient and was much more than the amount invested in the shares of the assessee company. Therefore, the source of source of investment has been established by the assessee and after being satisfied with the submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer did not opt to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. 13. From the above, we note that though the ld. Pr.CIT has wide supervisory power u/s 263 of the Act, however, he cannot invoke such powers to substitute the view taken by the Assessing Officer merely on the basis of the presumpti....