AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 732
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 1,05,000/-u/s 69C of the Act. 4. It is therefore prayed that above additions made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is as Company, engaged in the garment business. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2009-10 on 01.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs. 4,16,830/-. Initially the return of income was processed under section 143(1) and was accepted. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 and notice under section 148 dated 31.03.20214, was issued and served on the assessee on the same date. In response to notice under section 148, the assessee submitted his reply on 23.04.2014 stated therein that return filed on 01.09.2009 be treated as the return filed in response to notice under section 148. The assessee demanded reasons recorded for reopening. The copy of reasons recorded for reopening was provided ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed detailed written submission. In the submission, the assessee has stated that all the companies are registered those Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFC). The assessee provided copy of share applications, bank statement, copy of PAN, certificate of registration with Reserve Bank of India, certificate of incorporation registration of company and Memorandum of Association and Article of Association of all investor companies. 4. After receipt of reply, the Assessing Officer issued another show cause notice on 13.03.2015 as recorded in appeal as well at page No. 7 to 18 of the assessment order. In the show cause notice the assessing officer also referred the summary of report of investigation wing Kolkata. In the show cause notice, the Assessing Officer stated that investigation wing of Kolkata recorded the statement of one of the Director Flyhigh Export Pvt Ltd, namely Shri RajkumarTharad, who allegedly stated that his main source of income is commissions from business of providing entry through "jamaKhaarchi/ paper companies". The investigation wing of Kolkata recorded the statement of one of the Director of Vignhar Marketing Pvt Limited, namely Shri Jivendra Mishra, who h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Registrar of Company (ROC) was vague, irrelevant and not definite. The assessee further explained that assessment cannot be re-opened merely on the basis of suspicious. The Assessing Officer directly jump to the conclusion that the assessee received share capital and share premium and there was escape of income. On merit, the assessee contended that share application money and share premium was received in earlier financial year and not in the financial year under consideration. The assessee further stated that sufficient documentary evidence were provided to the Assessing Officer to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction with related to investor company. The assessee also relied upon various case laws. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the factual and legal submission of the assessee upheld the validity of re-opening as well as addition on merit. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before us. 7. We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) and have gone through the orders of authorities below. Ground No.1 relates to validity of re-opening. The Ld. AR of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6) 103 ITR 437 (SC), • Balkrishna Hiralal Wani vs. ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Bom), • PCIT vs. Rajesh D. Nandu (HUF) (2019) 261 Taxman 110 (Bom), • Krown Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Circle-5(1) (2015) 375 ITR 460 (Bom) 9. On the merit of case, i.e., on Ground No.2, the ld. AR for the assessee submits that the assessee received share application money with face value of share and its premium in the last financial year i.e., in assessment year 2007-08 and not the current financial year i.e., in financial year 2008-09. The assessee received share application and share premium from eleven companies. In reply to the show cause notice before the assessing officer, the assessee has specifically contended before the Assessing Officer that share application and share premium money was received in earlier financial year. The similar submission was made before the Ld. CIT(A). Both the lower authorities disregarded the submission of assessee. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that all the investor companies are registered of Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) with the reserve bank of India (RBI) and are regularly filing their return of incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e (2015) 281 CTR (SC), • Kishanchand Celladram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC), • PCIT vs. Chartered Speed Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 126 of 2015 with 127 of 2015] (Guj)., • Laxmanbhai S. Patel vs. CIT 237 ITR 290 (Guj), • CCE Gujarat Cypromet Ltd. 34 taxmann.com 249 (Guj), • CIT vs. Indrajit Singh Suri 33 taxmann.com 281 (Guj) 12. Against, Ground No.3, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer made addition by presuming that the assessee paid commission of 1% to the investor company for availing accommodation entry, therefore, the addition of Rs. 1.05 lakhs was also made as unexplained expenditure. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that there is evidence on record that assessee had made any commission payment. The addition is purely on assumption and presumption basis. The Ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee is entitled to succeed on legal issue as well as on merit. 13. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR of the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. Ld. DR for the revenue submits that initially of the return of income was processed under section 143(1) and intimation was given to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition on account of share application and share premium money u/s under section 68 of the Act. The Ld. AR for the assessee vehemently argued that no money on account of share application or share premium was received during the current financial year which is the assessment year under consideration. We instead of going into merit and de-merit of the re-opening, first examine the date of receipt of various share application money. On perusal of record, we find that the assessee has received share application and share premium money from eleven investor companies in the following manner:- Sr. No. Name of Investor Amount deposited in assessee's account (in Rs.) Date pertaining to FY 2007-08 (FY 2008-09) 1. Balaji Indifin Ltd. 5,00,000/- 17.08.2007 5,00,000/- 20.12.2007 5,00,000/- 20.12.2007 2. Flyhigh Exports Pvt. Ltd. 5,00,000/- 21.01.2008 5,00,000/- 21.01.2008 3. G.R. Industries and Finance Ltd. 10,00,000/- 13.12.2007 4. MehndipuraTradelink 5,00,000/- 03.08.2007 5,00,000/- 27.08.2007 5. Prachi Chemicals and Ind. Ltd....