TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 488
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng was not considered as income. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, reopened the assessment by serving notice u/s 148 of the Act 09.12.2011 and assessed the income of the assessee by adding the amount of Rs. 35,645/-. Thereafter, the ld. CIT, Kolkata-II exercised his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and held that the reassessment order framed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for not verifying the subscriptions made by the share applicants. He accordingly set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration of the issue. Thereafter, in the set aside proceedings, the Assessing Officer passed ex parte assessment order dated 10.03.2015 u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act and made the addition of Rs. 10,61,00,000/- in respect of share capital and share premium received by the assessee during the year. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), however, the ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 08.09.2020 has deleted the additions so made by the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on can be challenged at any stage/proceedings and even that it can be raised before the Hon'bie Apex Court for the first time. In this case, the primary proceedings is the AO's action of re-opening the assessment by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act which was an action without jurisdiction for the reasons stated in above paragraphs. So the action of AO can be challenged in collateral proceedings u/s 263 of the Act as held by the Tribunal in which several decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been taken note and relied on the following decision of the Tribunal as under: (a) In the case of KESHAB NARAYAN BANERJEE VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [1999] 238 ITR 694, 156 CTR 109, 101 TAXMANN 512 the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court: We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the service by registered post of the notices allegedly sent to the appellant writ applicant, resulting in the passing of the order under section 147 of the Act was not properly effected or accomplished. Since, admittedly, the service of such notices was a necessary prerequisite, a condition precedent for passing of the orders under section 147 of the Act, we also have no hesitation in holdin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. c) In the case of M/s CharbhujaMarmo (India) (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT in ITA No. 4749/D/2019 dated 31.12.2019 (ITAT, Delhi) "6. We have considered the rival submissions. It is well settled Law that since reassessment proceedings are invalid and bad in law, therefore, such proceedings could not be revised under section 263 of the I. T. Act. It is also well settled Law that validity of the re-assessment proceedings are to be judged on the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment.'' He further placed reliance upon the following judgments: - "M/s Westlife Development Ltd. vs. PCIT in ITA No. 688/Mum/2016 dated24.06.2016 (ITAT, Mumbai) - Krishna Kumar Sarafvs. CIT in ITA No. 4562/Del/2011 dated 24.09.2015 (ITAT, Delhi) - M/s Classic Flour & Food Processing (P) Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No. 764 to 766/Kol/2014 dated 05.04.2017 (ITAT, Koikata)" d) In the case of the Lucknow Bench of ITAT in the case of Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) vs ITO 99 ITD 621 (Luck) and ITAT Mumbai ' G ' Bench in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. Vs Principal C.l.T. in ITA No.688/Mum/2016. In both the decisions a view has been taken by the Tribunal t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Mehta vs Gobind Ram Bohra, (1990) 1 SCC 193 and the decisions in the case of Indian Bank vs Manilal Govindji Khona (2015) 3 SCC 712. The Mumbai bench also held that if order of assessment passed u/s 147 of the Act was nullity in the eyes of law then that order cannot be revised by invoking powers u/s 263 of the Act by CIT. The Mumbai Bench has in this regard placed reliance on the decision of Delhi bench of the Tribunal in the case of Krishna Kumar Saraf vs CIT in ITA NO.4562/Del/2007 order dated 24.09.2015 wherein it was held as follows "17. There is no quarrel with the proposition advanced by Id. DR that the proceedings u/s 263 are for the benefit of revenue and not for assessee. 18. However, u/s 263 the Id. Commissioner cannot revise a non est order in the eye of law. Since the assessment order was passed in pursuance to the notice U/S 143(2), which was beyond time, therefore, the assessment order passed in pursuance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the same was non est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count of the assessee company nor through share subscriber companies (shareholders) to whom the assessee company has allotted shares." Therefore, according to the Ld. AR, this finding of fact by the Ld. Pr. CIT clearly reveals that the deposits in the bank account of M/s. Miracle has not been routed to the assessee company which assertion of the Ld. A.R. could not be rebutted/contradicted by the Ld. CITDR. So Ergo, we note that the foundation on which the reason to believe escapement of income by the AO to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 17.03.2017 itself was on wrong assumption of fact as is evident from the finding of fact by the Ld. PCIT that no money from M/s Miracle has been routed to the assessee company directly or indirectly whereas the foundation fact on the basis of which reopened the assessment as is evident from the reasons recorded (supra) was that high value of money was deposited in the bank account of M/s Miracle which in-turn has been routed to the assessee through third party in the form of share subscription to the tune of Rs. 8.34 crores which fact was found by Ld. PCIT to be absent. So, the AO's belief of escapement of income was on wrong assumption of fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer at the instance of the assessee itself as the assessee has written a letter to the Assessing Officer that it had failed to offer Rs. 35,650/- on account of profit on share dealing. That the assessee at this stage was not entitled to agitate about the validity of the assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the record. So far as the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, that the defect in jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment and thereby the very validity of the base assessment order u/s 147 of the Act can be agitated in the collateral proceedings also, the issue is no more res integra in the light of the various case laws relied upon by the Ld. counsel of the assessee as mentioned in his submissions, as noted above. The issue is squarely covered by the various case laws/decisions: i) M/s Westlife Development Ltd vs Pr.CIT (2016) 49 ITR 406 (Mum Trib) ii) Valiant Glass Works vs . ACIT ITA 1612/Mum/2013 d ate d 27.07.2016 iii) Steel Strips Ltd vs ACIT (1995) 53 ITR 553 (Chd Trib) iv) P V Doshi vs CIT (1978) 113 ITR 0022 (Guj HC) v) CIT vs Income Tax App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Id.CIT was a nullity in the eyes of law, and therefore an order, which was a nullity in the eyes of law had no existence in the eyes of law and, therefore, the same could not have been revised by the Ld.CIT, thereby giving fresh life to the proceedings which had no legal existence in the eyes of law. In this regard, it has been further explained by the Id. counsel that the original assessment was framed u/s 143(3) upon an erstwhile company, viz. M/s 'Westpoint Leisureparks Pvt Ltd' (hereinafter called WLPL), which had already got amalgamated into another company namely M/s 'Westlife Development Ltd' (hereinafter called WDL) and therefore, on the date of framing of the assessment order, WLPL was not in existence. It was further submitted that this fact was brought to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer; despite that, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment upon a non-existing entity. It was submitted by him that framing of an assessment upon a company which has already been amalgamated by way of an order of the High Court is nullity in the eyes of law and in support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the following judgments: 1. Judgment of Delhi Hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. In our view, we need to decide following issues, before we go into any other issues or merits of the impugned order: 1. Whether the assessee can challenge the validity of an assessment order during the appellate proceedings pertaining to examination of validity of order passed u/s 263? 2. Whether the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 24-10-2013 was valid in the eyes of law or a nullity as has been claimed by the assessee? 3. If the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) was illegal or nullity in the eyes of law, then, whether the CIT had a valid jurisdiction to pass the impugned order u/s 263 to revise the non est assessment order? In our considered view, since these issues are jurisdictional issues and go to the root of the matter, therefore before dealing with any other issue, we shall first deal with all above three issues one by one, as under: 8. Challenging the jurisdictional defects of assessment order for assailing the jurisdictional validity of the revision order passed u/s 263: The first issue that arises for our consideration is - whether the assessee can challenge the jurisdictional validity of order passed u/s 143(3) in the appellate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder passed in the primary (original) proceedings should be allowed to be examined even at the subsequent stages, only for the limited purpose of examining whether the collateral (subsequent) proceedings have been initiated on a valid legal platform or not and for examining the validity of assumption of jurisdiction to initiate the collateral proceedings. If it is not so allowed, then, it may so happen that though order passed in the original proceedings was illegal and thus order passed in the subsequent proceedings in turn would also be illegal, but in absence of a remedy to contest the same, it may give rise to an 'enforceable' tax liability without authority of law. Therefore, the Courts have taken this view that jurisdictional aspects of the order passed in the primary proceedings can be examined in the collateral proceedings also. This issue is not res integra. This issue has been decided in many judgments by various courts, and some of them have been discussed by us in followings paragraphs. 8.2. In a matter that came up before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors., [1955] 1 5CR 117 the facts were that the appellant in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sdiction of the Court was gone into in issue Nos. 4 and 5 at the ex-parte trial, the decree there-under is a nullity, and does not bind the appellant. Therefore, it does not operate as a res judicata. The Courts below have committed grave error of law in holding that the decree in the suit operated as res judicata and the appellant cannot raise the same point once again at the execution." 8.4. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court by following aforesaid judgments recently in the case of Indian Bank vs Manual Govindji Khona reported in 2015 (3) SCC 712. Further, similar view was emphasized by Hon'ble Bombay High Court (GOA Bench) in the case of Mavany Brothers vs CIT (Tax Appeal No 8 of 2007) in its order dt 17th April, 2015 wherein it was held that an issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time even in appeal or execution. 8.5. The aforesaid principles, enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors, supra were reiterated by the Apex Court in the cases of Superintendent of Taxes vs Onkarmal Nathmal Trust (AIR 1975 SC 2065) and Dasa Muni Reddy v. Appa Rao (AIR 1974 SC 2089). In the first of these decisions it was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal which took the view that after its earlier order in the first round of proceedings the matter attained finality with regard to the point of jurisdiction which was given up before the AAC and not agitated further and that in the remand proceedings what was open before the Assessing Officer was only the question whether the addition was justified on merits and the point regarding the jurisdictional aspect was not open before the Assessing Officer. According to the Tribunal, the assessee having raised the point in the first round and having given it up could not revive it in the second round of proceedings where the issue was limited to the merits of the additions. In this view, the Tribunal accepted the Revenues plea. The assessee thereafter carried order of the Tribunal in reference before the Gujarat High Court. The High Court after considering various judgments of the Supreme Court on the point of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and also after specifically discussing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Onkarmal Nathmal Trust (supra) and Dasa Muni Reddy (supra) held that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the question of jurisdiction became final when it passe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lied) 8.8. Similar view was taken in another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhiraj Suri vs ACIT 98 lTD 87 (Del). In the said case, appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal against the levy of penalty. In the appeal challenging the penalty order, the assessee challenged the validity of block assessment order which had determined the tax liability of the assessee on the basis of which penalty was levied subsequently. The revenue objected with respect to the ground of the assessee raising jurisdictional issues of assessment proceedings in the appeal against the penalty order. After analysing the legal position, as clarified by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainaravan Babulal vs CIT. 170 ITR 399, the bench held as that if the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction then there is no question of levy of any penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8.9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the matter. 19. While exercising powers u/s 263 Id. Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order which is non est in the eye of law because it would prejudice the right of assessee which has accrued in favour of assessee on account of its income being determined. If Id. Commissioner revises such an assessment order, then it would imply extending/ granting fresh limitation for passing fresh assessment order. It is settled law that by the action of the authorities the limitation cannot be extended, because the provisions of limitation are provided in the same. 20. In view of above discussion, ground no.3 is allowed and revision order passed u/s 263 is quashed." 10.2. It is further noticed by us that similar view has been taken by Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Strips Ltd (supra). 11. Thus, after taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that in this case, the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dt 24-10-2013 was null & void in the eyes of law as the same was passed upon a non-existing entity and, therefore, the Ld. CIT could not have assumed jurisdiction under the law to make revision of a non est order and, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or estoppel or the bar of res judicata being attracted because the order in such cases would lack inherent jurisdiction unless the conditions precedent are fulfilled and it would be a void order or a nullity. The above decision of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court has also been followed by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of "Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd vs KIT" ( Supra) as discussed above. Even, the Tribunal in the case or Dhiraj Suri (supra) in an appeal against the penalty order has held that if the assessment order was without jurisdiction, there was no question of levy of penalty, therefore, it was open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against levy of penalty. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of investors Industrial Corporation (supra) has held that the assessee was entitled to challenge the jurisdiction of the AO to initiate reopening of assessment proceedings before the CIT (A) in the second round of proceedings even though it has not raised the same before earlier proceedings before the AO or in the earlier appeal. 13. In the light of various case laws as cited above, the proposition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich were non-est in the eyes of law has no legal sanctity. 9. We note that for reopening of the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer must have reasons to believe that the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year has escaped assessment. The said reasons to believe could be based on any tangible material or information received by the Assessing Officer. In this case, the letter written by the assessee to the Assessing Officer was nothing else, but an information received by the Assessing Officer of escapement of income of the assessee for the year under consideration. However, merely because the information of escapement of income was received from the assessee itself that itself did not give any jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer to surpass the mandate of the statutory provisions as provided u/s 151 of the Act to get the necessary approval from the competent authority before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act in this was bad in law for want of jurisdiction of the Assessing officer to reopen the assessment without approval of competent authority u/s 151 of the Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht to revise only that part of the assessment order, the subject-matter of which had nothing to do with that item of income, in such a case, doctrine of merger did not apply and that the period of limitation would commence from the date of original assessment and not from the reassessment since the latter had not anything to do with the said item of income. 11.1 We note that in the case in hand also the assessment was reopened on a particular issue of the escapement of income of Rs. 35,645/- earned by the assessee as profit on share dealing. The Assessing Officer examined that particular issue and made addition in respect of the said profits earned by the assessee. The issue relating to any other transaction i.e. share application money received by the assessee, was not the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings. Since, the issue of share application money on which the ld. PCIT has sought to revise the order was not the subject matter of the reassessment order, therefore, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (supra), it cannot be said that the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort, the assessee filed its submissions which were also considered by the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), after considering the remand report as well as submissions of the assessee, deleted the addition, so made by the Assessing Officer, observing as under: "4.2. I have considered the issue in the assessment order framed by the AO in light of the arguments made by the appellant. The short issue for my consideration is that whether the 'share application monies' in the sum of Rs. 10,61,00,000/- disclosed by the appellant invite the mischief of the provisions of Section 68 of the Act or not. The provision of Section 68 of the Act deals with cash credit which reads as under: "68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assesses of that previous year." According to this section, if identity, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction is not proved and the explanation offere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me u/s 139(1) of the Act in respect of the assessment year 2009-10 on 25.08.2009 declaring loss of Rs. 2,2025/-. The said return was accepted and processed by the AO u/s 143(1) of the said Act Subsequently, the AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Art, 1961 requiring the appellant to file a fresh return of its total income for the assessment year under appeal, on the ground that the income assessable to tax of the appellant, for the said year, had escaped assessment within the meaning of sec. 147 of the said Act. In compliance with such notice, the appellant wrote a letter requesting the AO to treat the return originally filed on 25.08.2009 as having been filed in response to the said notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act In the course of the said proceedings u/s 147 of the Art, the appellant in response to the requisitions made by the AO, from time to time, produced its audited books of accounts, filed copies of its audited annual accounts including various details and other documents as desired by toe AO. The details and documents so produced and filed with the AO included, inter alas full details of each of the 9 share applicant companies, which had subscribed to toe aggrega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of toe share subscribers again. Such notices were duty served upon the respective share applicants at their respective addresses on the records of the appellant Service of such notices u/s. 133(8) and u/s 131 of the Act to each of the share applicants at their respective known addresses proves their respective identifies, ft is observed that each of the share applicants are registered under the Companies Act, 1958 and are on the records of Registrar of Companies functioning under Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. In fact, each of the share applicants has responded to tire statutory notices issued to them u/s 133(8) and appeared personally in compliance to summon u/s131 of the Act In their respective replies, toe share applicants had disclosed, inter alia, their Permanent Account Numbers along with the acknowledgment- of their return of income and furnished audit report and financial statements which in my opinion proves their identities to the hilt. Even the AG has accepted the identities of these share applicants. It is also observed that each of the share applicants maintained bank accounts; and copies of their respective bank accounts from which they made payme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is also observed that each of file share applicants explained' the source of funds, from which they made payments- to the appellant for subscribing to the share capital, These facts borne on record by the share applicants, in my opinion, clearly prove their respective source of funds, and their capacity for making such payments and accordingly, the criteria of their creditworthiness is proved. The AO has not found any defect and/or deficiency in the source of funds explained by the share applicants through their replies to the statutory notices Issued u/s. 133(8) of the Act to them. It is also observed that every share applicant in their respective replies to the statutory notices issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act,, furnished copies of their income tax acknowledgments evidencing filing of income tax returns by each of them, copies of their audited accounts including Balance Sheets wherein such investments made by each of them in file subscription of share capital issued by the appellant are duly reflected as also copies of their bank statements for the relevant period from which such subscription monies were paid by them respectively and copy of the allotment advise received by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e application money with the appellant. It is accordingly observed that these facts adequately prove their credit worthiness to make investment in the share capital of the appellant company. The aforesaid facts underlined by evidences clearly prove the identity of the share applicants, their capacity and source of funds of the share applicants, as well as the genuineness of the transaction in relation to the share capital issued by the appellant, which was subscribed by each of them. Thus, it is proved beyond any or dispute that the share applicants are actually found to have subscribed to the share capital issued by the appellant, in the impugned previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal, as dearly evident not only from their respective books of accounts, but also from their audited accounts filed with the income tax authorities in relation to their own income tax assessments, and the sources of such funds are also explained by each of the share applicants in their replies addressed to the AO. However, the AO had not brought these indisputable facts on record but acted on his whims and fancies. It is observed that the burden which lay on the appellant, in relation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eque numbers and the assessee's bank statements disclosing the deposits of these amounts. In these facts we find that the assesses has discharged its initial onus to prom the identity of the investors as well as their. creditworthiness. It is not the case of the Revenue that the investor parties did not exist or that the money was not invested by them through banking channels." Having found such, the Tribunal had relied on the judgement in Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v, CIT(Cali): 263 ITR 289 (Cal) to uphold the order of the CIT. In view of the findings above note, no substantial question of law arises and therefore, the appeal and the application am dismissed." Again, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court In the case of CIT vs. Sanchati Projects P. Ltd. ITAT 140 of 2011 dated 08.06.2011] it was observed as under: - "It appears from record that the assesses company during the relevant assessment year under appeal raised Ms share capital by way of receiving share application money against 1,64,000 equity shams aggregating to Rs. 82,00,000/- from 8 different parties. The Assessing Officer, however, treated the share application money of Rs. 45,00,000/- received from five ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of substantial error, of law arises justifying our interference. The appeal is, thus, summarily dismissed. " There is no evidence on record to show that the identities of the share applicants are not proved and/or that the introduction of share capital by them was not genuine and/or fits source of investment was not fully explained to the satisfaction of the AO. Further, the Hon-ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dataware Private Ltd. [ITAT No, 263 of 2011 dated 21.09.2011] wherein while examining the issue of addition of share application money received by the assessee company therein u/s. 68 of the Act, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that after getting the PAN number and getting the information that the creditor is assessed under the Act, the Assessing Officer should enquire, from the Assessing Officer of the creditor as to the genuineness of the transaction and whether such transaction has been accepted by the assessing officer of the creditor but instead of adopting such course, the Assessing Officer himself could not enter into the return of the creditor and brand the same as unworthy of credence. The Hon'ble High Court further held that so ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d had also given the cheque number, name of the bank. It was expected on the part of the Assessing Officer to make proper investigation and reach the shareholders. The Assessing Officer did nothing except issuing summons which were ultimately returned back with an endorsement 'not traceable'. The Assessing Officer ought to have found out their details through PAN cards, bank account details or from their bankers so as to reach the shareholders since all the relevant material details and particulars were given by the assessee to the Assessing Officer. In the above circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal could not be faulted. No substantial question of law was involved in the appeal." 5.2 The instant case is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pranav Foundations Ltd. [2015] 229 Taxman 58 (Mad) wherein their Lordship have held as under: "In view of the fact that all the four parties, who are subscribers of the shares, are limited companies and enquiries were made and received from the four companies and all the companies accepted their investment. Thus, the assessee has categorically established the nature and source of the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made in respect of said amount." 6. The initial doubts stressed in the reasoning of the , AO in the instant case is based on the premise of "non-appearance by the Directors" of the appellant in response to summons issued u/s.131 of the said Act In this respect, it is observed that there is no ground to draw any adverse inference against the appellant, in relation to the provisions contained in sec. 68 of the said Act since the appellant had adduced alt possible evidence in support of the share capital raised by it and all the 9 share applicants appeared before the AO in course of remand proceedings and their statements were recorded by the AO hence there was nothing more for directors to state in that respect the genuineness of the entire share transactions. 6.1. It is also a fact that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2009-10, toe appellant had received share application monies from 9 share applicants. In course of assessment proceedings, all foe share applicants provided evidence by proving their identity and creditworthiness and also the genuineness of the transactions and accordingly, the same was accepted by the AO in the assessment order framed u/s.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT(A) has thoroughly discussed the entire evidences on file. The ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee had duly filed all the relevant documents to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the 9 share subscribers who have subscribed aggregate share capital of Rs. 10,61,00,000/-. That the Assessing Officer to get the identity and creditworthiness of the said share subscribers verified, had issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act, which were duly complied with by all the share subscribers during the remand proceedings and they furnished the necessary details. Not only this, the Assessing Officer also issued summons u/s 131 of the Act and all the directors of the share subscribing companies personally appeared and their statements were recorded. Copies of the bank accounts of all the share subscribers were also furnished and all the share subscribers duly confirmed that they had made share subscription in the assessee company. The ld. CIT(A) has also noted that the Assessing Officer, himself, has admitted that the directors of the share applicant companies and source of such investor companies belonged to the same family and he produced the family tree to prove that funds were c....