TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... LD CIT(A) is illegal. b. Because any additions made without search material is outside the b. scope of assessment framed u/s sec 153A so the order passed by LD CIT(A) is illegal. 2. On the factual position also, the order passed by LD CIT(A) is not the possession of the official liquidator and the directors of the tenable as the group company of the assessee company was under liquidation and the records of the assessee company were also in company were not allowed to have any access on the records as such the assessee company was unable to produce the A.R. on behalf of the company before the LD.CIT(A). 3, Because after the search carried on the group by the department 3. income of Shri Mahdoom Bava Bahrudeen Nooral the investment Shri Mahdoom - Bava Bahrudeen Nooral was also a party to the search and was assessed by the same A.O. while assessing the made by him in the assessee company was held as genuine, how the same investment done by him in the assessee company can be termed as unexplained. The stand taken by Ld. AO and consequently confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary and thereby the confirmations of the additions of Rs. 500000 is contrary to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the course of search operation at C-125, Sector-2, Noida. The assessee was also asked to explain the information's available in the MCA site in respect of the company. In response to this notice, letter dated 09-03-2015 was received from Sh. Mahdoom Bava. He informed that he is no more director of company since F.Y. 2009-10 and the company is not in operation from F.Y. 2010-11. He further stated that the record of the company are in the premises of M/s Naftogaz India (P) Ltd., C-125A, Sector-2, Noida. M/s Naftogaz India (P) Ltd. has gone into liquidation and the asset and records of the Company are sealed by Official Liquidator of Delhi. Hence, he do not have any access to record. He requested for adjournment for submitting the reply. The assessee did not comply with various notices issued by the A.O. Therefore, the assessment order came to be passed u/s 153A read with Section 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act being unexplained share capital. 4. As against the assessment order, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 16/12/2016 dismissed the Appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d disc seized during the course of search operation and information available on MCA site. (iii) It has been stated by the A.O. that the assessee has received share capital of Rs. 5,00,000/-, during the F.Y. 2008-09, relating to A.Y. 2009-10, which has been shown in the balance sheet, as well as in the hard disk seized. For this share capital, the A.O. has specifically asked the assessee vide notice u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire dated 02.12.2014 to furnish the details relating to share capital in para 3, as under:- "Assessment Year wise complete names and addresses of the Directors of the company and of all the shareholders. Details of shareholding of the company. Details of increase in share capital during the year with confirmation of parties/PAN and source of funds." (Bold: Emphasis supplied) However, assessee failed to submit any such details and therefore, another notice u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire was issued on 09.01.2015, asking for details and also to furnish the details already asked vide questionnaire dated 02.12.2014. However, again the assessee failed to find any details on given date and time. Further, the A.O. i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t acceptable, since nothing was stated before the A.O. in the assessment proceedings and also in the appellate proceedings, except mentioning in the statement of fact and therefore, this claim is not substantiated by the appellant. From the above, it is clear that, if A.O. can fetch the information from MCA site, then who prevented the appellant to file such details before the A.O., as well as in the appellate proceedings to prove the genuineness of the alleged transaction entered in the form of share capital. The details of share holders were not furnished by the appellant before the A.O. and therefore, it was not possible for the A.O. to call the information u/s 133(6) of the Act, as suggested by the appellant in the statement of fact. On perusal of assessment record, it is clear that in the annual return filed on 30.9.2009 under the company's Act for F.Y. 2008-09, the name of the share holders for the fresh 50,000 shares are as under:- (a) M/s Naftogaz India Private Limited 10,000 (b) Shri Mahdoom Bava Bahrudeen Nooral 39995 (c) Shri Ramendra Kumar Jain 1 (d) Shri Mohammad Naim Khan 1 (e) Shri Kishor Kumar Pahraj 1 (f)....