2023 (2) TMI 862

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal is directed against the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"] concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08. 3. The Tribunal, via the impugned order, has sustained the deletion of addition of Rs.16,88,65,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"]. 4. To be noted, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"] via order dated 28.10.2016 had ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee on merits, and hence deleted the aforementioned addition. 4.1. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order passed by the CIT(A), the appellant/revenue had preferred an appeal. 5. The record shows, that the respondent/assessee had also preferred cross objection....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a premium of Rs. 90/-. Upon making enquiries with regard to the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the applicants, an assessment order, as noticed above, was framed on 24.10.2009 under Section 143(3) of the Act. 9. It is in this broad backdrop, that the Tribunal directed its attention both to the initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act and the merits of the case. 10. A perusal of the impugned order shows, that the Tribunal meticulously examined the record of the AO, which included the reasons given for re-opening, after the notice dated 12.06.2014 under Section 148 of the Act was issued. 10.1 The reasons furnished to the respondent/assessee for re-opening the assessment made under Section 143(3) of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essment: 13.1 The reasons for reopening the assessment furnished by the AO did not record that there was a failure on the part of the respondent/assessee to disclose, truly and fully, all material facts necessary for carrying out the assessment. 13.2 That enquiries had been made relating to infusion of share capital including share premium and unsecured loans taken by the respondent/assessee during period in consideration. 14. Based on these findings of facts which are now assailed before us, the Tribunal concluded that the prerequisite for jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act with regard to a case falling under the first proviso was not fulfilled. 14.1 In other words, since more than four years had passed from the end of t....