TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1864
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the 'Act'). ITA No. 1271/MUM/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the revenue read as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing to delete the addition of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- made u/s, 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, thereby allowing the share application money received by the assessee as properly explained, without appreciating that the genuineness of this transaction is in serious doubt and as such the amount as taxable u/s 68 of the LT. Act as unexplained cash credit, 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing to delete the addition of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trinsic value of the shares are much less to command such a huge amount of premium. Based on the above information and after recording the reasons, the AO reopened the case by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2014 to the assessee. The AO also provided to the assessee the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment vide office letter dated 06.02.2015. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had issued shares at a huge premium to 7 parties and during the year the assessee had actually issued 70,000 equity shares at a price of Rs. 1000/- per share for a total sum of Rs. 70,000,000/- and out of this, face value of one share is Rs. 100/- and premium is Rs. 900/-. As recorded by the AO, the assessee fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....panies duly assessed to tax. These companies have given share application money from their own funds and the AO has accepted the fact that share application money has been advanced from the said funds, hence it becomes crystal clear that there is no unexplained cash credit or unexplained share capital. Therefore, such baseless addition made by the AO of Rs. 70,000,000/- u/s. 68 of the IT. Act is deleted." 5. Before us, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the AO. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel relies on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. counsel further submits that the assessee had filed the following documents before the AO and CIT(A) : 1. Acknowledgement of ROI filed originally together with computation of total income & audit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the above case are totally different from the facts of the present assessee in as much as detailed inquiries were conducted by the AO and he concluded that the assessee failed to prove the identity of the investor companies and genuineness of the transaction in as much as the investor companies were found to be non-existent, almost none of the companies produced bank statements to establish source of funds for making huge investments in the shares, and none of the investor companies appeared before the AO. The Ld. counsel submits that in the present case of the assessee, no inquiries were made by the AO, relevant bank statements of each of the share applicants were furnished by the assessee, the AO himself accepted that the source of fun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by the assessee on the basis of conjectures and assumptions. Facts being so, we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 9. The cross-objection filed by the assessee reads as under : The order under appeal is void and illegal and, therefore, bad in law for want of approval of satisfaction for re-opening the case from the competent authority as required u/s 151 of the IT Act, 1961. 10. The Ld. counsel submits that as clear from the reasons recorded by the AO that there is no material, let alone any cogent material which would give rise to reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment warranting action u/s 147 of the Act. It is further stated ....