TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. For that the order of the learned CIT is arbitrary, illegal, excessive, perverse and bad in law. 2. Because the Reopening of assessment by A.O. is itself bad in law and without application of mind as there was no any amount received by assessee from Inland Vanijaya Pvt. Ltd. which was the basis of reopening. The AO has not made any addition for this also. There are judicial rulings which clearly say that if addition could not be made for the matter which was basis of reopening then no addition can be made on any other matter. (CIT v/s Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 30 Taxmann.com 1) (Gujarat HC). So when reopening itself is illegal then order u/s 263 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs Pvt Ltd., were transferred to assessee through Inland Vanijya Pvt Ltd., which is one of the shell companies. On scrutiny, it was noticed that the assessee received share capital and share premium of Rs. 31.00 lakhs from Salpaturi Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Deejay Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Lodha & Company Ltd., Janet Investment Pvt. Ltd., Jabali Commercial Co. Pvt. Ltd., and VHS Jaiswal Sales Pvt. Ltd. 3. The assessee also received share application money of Rs. 14 lakhs from Salpaturi Suppliers P. Ltd., Rose Valley Sales P. Ltd. and Janet Investment P. Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition of Rs. 31 lakhs with regard to Salpaturi Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Deejay Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Lodha& Company Ltd., Janet Investment Pvt. Ltd., Jabali ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4,00,000/- Total 14,00,000/- 6. The ld.PCIT after scrutiny of assessment record took his view that the AO has neither considered nor examined the identity, creditworthy and genuineness of transaction of the share application and share premium, nor added to the total income of the assessee, the AO failed to observe the above facts during the assessment proceedings. The share premium received from these companies are also bogus. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the ld. Pr.CIT issued show cause notice dated 24.01.2020 that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the same is passed without making enquiries and verification which should have been made by the Assessing Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt was made by Assessing Officer while passing the re-assessment order. This objection was raised by assessee during the reassessment proceedings. As the reassessment order is bad in law, therefore, the assessment order cannot be revised. To support his submission, the ld.AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani [2013] 30 taxmann.com 1 (Gujarat) and order of Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in Supersonic Technologies (P) Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT in ITA Nos: 2269, 2527, 2857 & 3301/Delhi/2017 dated 10.12.2018. The ld.AR submits that reassessment order should be quashed. 8. After hearing the submission of the assessee, the Bench asked the ld.AR of the assessee to make his submission on validity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of share application or share premium received from three share subscriber companies of Rs. 14,00,000/-. The ld.CIT-DR submits that neither the Assessing Officer examined the issue related with share subscribing issue of three companies namely, Salputri Suppliers Pvt Ltd, Rose Valley Sales Pvt Ltd. and Janet Investment Pvt. Ltd. nor there is any reference in the assessment order. The assessment order is, thus erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Since the ld.AR of the assessee failed to make any submission on the merit, thus, the order passed under section 263 of the Act is liable to be upheld. 10. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther words the assessment order is not merged with the order of ld.PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 11. Similarly, the facts of other case law in Supersonic Technologies (P) Ltd Vs PCIT (supra) are also quite different. In the said case the ld. PCIT while exercising his power under section 263 tried to give the new lease of life to the invalid order passed by assessing officer. In the said case the ld. PCIT himself noted that the assessing officer has not issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act and revised the assessment order. Thus, the legal submission raised by the learned AR for the assessee are not acceptable to us. No other legal or factual issues were raised or pressed before us, therefore, we do not find merit in a....