TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....set-aside the Assessment Order and held it to be without jurisdiction. 2. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order of Assessment as also that of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming such order, is both bad in law and on facts and is liable to be quashed since the reasons for reopening assessment were supplied at the very fag end of limitation and the time gap between date of supply of reason to reopen assessment and the date of framing of reassessment order is less than one month which is impermissible in law as held by various courts. 3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, re-opening of Assessment is bad in law since the alleged notice U/s 148 was not issued with limitation and it is submitted with deep anguish and regret that Revenue has resorted to fabrication of documents, interfered with evidence and has tempered the record of proceedings and is guilty of perjury on the facts as would be demonstrated during the course of hearing. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no addition could be made in the case of a company u/s 68 of the Act when it is an admitted position that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment proceedings, he did not pass any order on the objections at all; and that the objections have been dealt with by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order itself, which, again, is not as per the law laid down in 'GKN Driveshafts Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO and Others' (supra) and 'Bayer Material Science (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT', in writ petition no.2502 of 2015, order dated 27/1/2016. 3. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. has contended that a perusal of the letter dated 29/3/2016 shows that it is, in fact, as also observed by the Assessing Officer, is a reply to the questionnaire issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee and that it is on merits of the case, that the submissions have been made in this letter/reply; that therefore, as correctly held by the ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer was correct in observing that no particular objection had specifically been raised against the reasons recorded, that belief of escapement of income, and there was nothing before him to decide as the objections raised by the assessee. 4. Heard. A perusal of the aforesaid letter/reply dated 29/3/2016 [APB:120-128] shows that therein, the assessee, no doubt, has dealt with the questions raised b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ership of such shares i.e. 14000 shares and 10000 shares were with M/s. Peekay Credit Services Private Limited and M/s. Jewelrock Barter Private Limited respectively during the year under consideration to whom the assessee-company had allotted shares. That, few queries were further raised vide notice no. CIT/Alld/133(6)RAC/2014-l5 dated 23rd March, 2015 which was received by the assessee company at the fag end of its financial closing, fixing date of compliance, 2015. The assessee-company sought adjournment vide speed post no. EU485857999IN dated 26/03/2015 but could not receive the status of its application for said adjournment. (Copy of application annexed as Annexure-C Page No, 1 to ). Inspite of the facts portrayed above, notice No. 1450 dated 31/03/2015 was issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In reply to the aforesaid notice, a proper submission was made which was duly acknowledged by the department vide ASK No. 105290415000728 on 29/04/2015. Through such submission, the assessee had solicited the reasons recorded for assess/reassess the income of M/s. Harakh Chand Glass Private Limited for the assessment year 2008-09 u/s 147 of the Income Tax, 1961 along....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c premium of Rs. 90/- and accordingly income of the assesses to this extent has escaped assessment. Thus, it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 147/148 of the Act. The amount that has escaped assessment in this case is likely to be more than Rs. 1,00,000/-". On perusal of the aforesaid reason, which caused your honour to believe that the quantum of income i.e. Rs. 21,60,000/- (24000 shares @ 90/-) had escaped assessment, it is noticed that your honour is proceeding to treat this amount as assessee-company's income . Whereas the factual matrix in this regard is that the assessee-company had received this amount from the subscribers to shares of the company i.e. from the two companies whose legal birth has been established under the Companies Act , 1956 [ M/s. Peekay Credit Services Private Limited came into existence on 16/03/1990 and M/s. Jeweirock Barter Private Limited came into existence on 14/12/1994 ] and whose identities were established before your honour date back on 13th June, 2014 in response your honour notice dated 23rd May, 2014 issued under section 133(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Copy of the same is annexed herewith [Please refer Annexure A Supra]. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o companies namely M/s. Peekay Credit Services Private Limited and M/s. Jewelrock Barter Private Limited showed interest and had subscribed for shares at the premium of Rs. 90/= per share. Copy of their share applications forms, resolutions, PAN and past/current address proof is annexed herewith for your kind perusal. After receiving the share application forms and full consideration as mentioned in the share application form from the subscriber companies, directors of the assessee-company in its board meeting allotted shares to them. In order to substantiate its stand that Rs. 21,60,000/- is subscriber's money and is not the assessee-company's money, assessee-company annexes herewith the following documents/evidences, in addition to what has been asked for vide notices dated 22/03/2016 issued under section 143(2) and section 142(1) through e-mails , which sanctifies its version:- 1. Copy of Extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of M/s Peekay Credit Services Private Limited. [Annexure-E Page No.1 ] 2. Copy of Extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of M/s. Jewelrock Barter Private Limited. [Annexure-F Page No. 1 ] 3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....objections against the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for formation of belief of escapement of income, have been raised by the assessee, that the Assessing Officer needs must decided such objections by a specific separate order, disposing of the said objections. In case, the Assessing Officer rejects the objections raised by the assessee, such a separate order would enable, following the principles of natural justice, an opportunity to the assessee, to challenge the said separate order before the competent Court. 6. In 'General Motors (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT', 354 ITR 244 (Guj), it has been held that where no order has been passed by the AO deciding the objections filed by the assessee against notice issued under section 148 of the Act, or where such objections have been decided alongwith the assessment order, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act deserves to be quashed. Their Lordships further observed as follows: "The Assessing Officer is mandated to decide the objection to the notice under section 148 and supply or communicate it to the assessee. The assessee gets an opportunity to challenge the order in a writ petition. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer may pas....