TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 704
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax (Appeals),-31,New Delhi, dated 26/12/2017 and 23/02/2018. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A. No. 2861/DEL/2018 (A.Y 2008-09) 1. Whether based on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) is erred in holding that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, bad and void ab initio. 2. Whether based on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) is erred in holding that the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO is bad/illegal as the reasons recorded are factually wrong. 3. Whether based on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) is erred in holding that assessment is bad since no additions have been made with regar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition and raise demand and that too without considering the facts and evidence on record and settled position of law and thus such an orders be quashed as such. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 10,37,00,000/- representing alleged unexplained share application money received and, held to be unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. 2.1. That the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that "the entity did not have the capacity to give share application money. Further, the transactions have remained unexamined, as reported by the AO. Prime facie, this entity did not have the capacity to give this amount" "For ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that "in view of factual position as provided by the AO in his remand report, and in view of the non cooperation by the appellant (and that of Sh. Atul Bansal before the AO in remand proceedings), the aforesaid sundry creditors remain unverified" is factually incorrect, legally misconceived and wholly untenable. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 1,32.62,02,462/- representing alleged unexplained advance received from customers and, held to be unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4.1. That the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that " in view of non cooperation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 2016 against the assessee in (IB)-375 (PB)/2018 before the National Company Law Tribunal Principal Bench at New Delhi ('NCLT' for short) and judgment has been passed by the NCLT on 12/09/2019 by allowing the application. Therefore, submitted that consequential appropriate order may be passed in the present appeal. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR, perused the material available on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. It is found that a financial creditor had filed an Application u/s 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 against the assessee in (IB)-375 (PB)/2018 before the National Company Law Tribunal Principal Bench at New Delhi ('NCLT' for short) and judgment has been passed by the NCLT on 12/09/2019 by allowing the said appl....