2022 (6) TMI 1355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee submitted, the impugned demand raised by the Assessing Officer is not enforceable as the assessment order in pursuance to which the demand has been raised is unsustainable in law. Proceeding further, he submitted, while proposing the draft assessment order, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has not followed the mandatory procedure of section 144B of the Act. He submitted, the Assessing Officer did not issue any show-cause notice to the assessee and had not provided any personal hearing before passing the draft assessment order. Thus, he submitted, the assessment order is bad in law. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court: 1. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent order, since, the Assessing Officer has not implemented the directions of learned DRP, it is in gross violation of provisions contained under section 144C(10) and 144B of the Act. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions: 1. ESPN Star Sports Mauritius SNCET Companies Vs. Union of India, 388 ITR 383 (Del.) 2. Global One India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 185 (Del.-Trib.) 4. Without prejudice, he submitted, the assessee has a strong case on merits as well. He submitted, the addition under section 68 of the Act is unsustainable in law and wholly without jurisdiction, as, the assessee has furnished all documentary evidences regarding receipt of share capital from existing nonresident sharehol....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r has remained completely silent on the issue. 8. It is further observed, the major addition resulting in the present demand is an amount of Rs.134,99,99,904/-, being share capital received from non-resident shareholders treated as unexplained investment under section 68 of the Act. While disposing of assessee's objection on this issue, learned DRP, while observing that the Assessing Officer has not considered the evidences filed by the assessee, directed him to consider the evidences and pass a speaking order. However, as we find, the Assessing Officer, while passing the final assessment order on the issue has simply repeated the observations made in the draft assessment order. Thus, the aforesaid facts clearly reveal that while passing t....