TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 488
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 35,645/- towards profit on share dealing 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd without jurisdiction, it is settled law that the jurisdiction 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in law and liable to be quashed. We, accordingly, set aside the Order of Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties." The Mumbai bench of the Ld ITAT made a reference 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s own words "in conclusion the relevant fact which Constitute the present case are that the alleged large transaction of M/s. Miracle have not been reached directly/indirectly to the assessee company as evident from bank account 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submit that for the reasons as stated hereinabove, the order and the notice were bad in law and hence the same be quashed. 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has submitted that the reopening of the assessment in this case was done by the Assessing 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. counsel of the assessee inter-alia stated that in this case the impugned order passed u/s 263 is bad in law on the jurisdictional ground, that is to say that the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 2440-2013 which has been sought to be revised by the 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 asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riginal assessment order cannot be raised here during the proceedings challenging the order u/s 263. It was further submitted by him that in any case, the ld.CIT had proper jurisdiction to make revision of the impugned assessment order. 7. We have heard both the parties on this issue and also gone through the orders passed by the lower authorities as well as the judgments relied upon before us. 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 m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sequent proceedings would be valid under the law as contained in Income Tax Act? It has been vehemently argued before us that the subsequent proceedings (i.e. collateral proceedings) derive strength only from the order passed in the original proceedings (i.e. primary proceedings). Thus, if order passed in the original proceedings is itself illegal, then that cannot give rise to valid revision proceedings. Therefore, as per law, the validity of the order 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 jurisdiction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in law the question for determination is whether the impugned decree of the Civil Court can be assailed by the appellant in execution. It is already held that it is the Controller under the Act that has exclusive jurisdiction to order ejectment of a tenant from a building in the urban area leased out by the landlord. Thereby the Civil Court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit and pass a decree of ejectment. Therefore, though the decree was passed and the jurisdiction 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent in appeal before the Tribunal and specifically raised the plea that the question of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment having been expressly given up by the assessee in the appeal against the reassessment order in the first round, the assessee was debarred from raising that point again before the AAC and the AAC was equally wrong in permitting the assessee to raise that point which had become final in the first round and in adjudicating upon the same. The plea of the Revenue impressed the Tribunal 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 T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the principle of 'coram non judice' and following aforesaid judgments of the supreme court, it was held that if an assessee seeks to challenge the reassessment proceedings as being without jurisdiction, when action for rectification is sought to be taken on the assumption of the validity of the reassessment order, then the assessee has to step in and protect its interests and the liberty to question even the validity of the reassessment proceedings ought to be given to it......." (emphasis supplied) 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 some was non est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the some was legal, which went to the root 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt left open was in respect of addition of on merits and that legal or jurisdictional aspect whether re-assessment proceedings were legally initiated was not kept open; It also held that even though this point went to root of jurisdiction and was pure question of law, merely because point was initially raised and not pressed when matter was taken up before AAC, it could be waived and it could not be reagitated ; The the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reversing the order of the Tribunal held that if the jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, there would be no question of waiver, acquiescence 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the aforesaid facts on the file has submitted that reopening of the assessment in this case was done without taking approval of the competent authority u/s 151 of the Act. He, therefore, has submitted that the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the same was non-est. He has submitted that the subsequent revision order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act and the consequent order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s sec. 263 of the Act were therefore, bad in law and therefore, the addition made in the subsequent orders which 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 assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e subject matter of reassessment and that therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act was bad in law. That the Ld. PCIT could have exercised revision jurisdiction in respect of original assessment order and not in respect of order passed u/s 147 of the Act. He has further contended that the revision order passed u/s 263 was, otherwise, time-barred. He in this respect has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 1(SC)', wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that where the Commissioner has sought 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 exa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued notices not only u/s 133(6) of the Act but also u/s 131 of the Act which were duly complied with by the assessee and the share subscribers. All the directors of the share subscribing companies appeared before the Assessing Officer in compliance of the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act and their statements were duly recorded by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer thereafter furnished the remand report to the CIT(A), however concluding that the assessee company rotated its undisclosed money layering through different body corporates in different structured web to obfuscate inquiry. In reply to the said remand report, 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of the Memorandum and 10,60,000 equity shares of toe face value of T1/~ each at a premium of W9f- per share. It is found that 9 corporate shareholders subscribed to the aforesaid share capital raised by toe appellant and all payments were made by each of them through account payee cheques drawn on their respective bankers. Each of the subscriber companies is regularly assessed to income tax and assessed u/s 143(3) of toe Act for the relevant assessment year: and the investments made by each of them are duly and fully reflected in their audited books of accounts as well as their respective income tax return. The appellant filed its return of total income 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 complian....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the liquidation of assets shown in the balance sheet after the change of Directors; the main grievance of the appellant was that the AO has not provided adequate opportunity to the appellant the matter was sent back to the AO for sending a remand report after making necessary enquiries. The remand report dated 02.07.2019 was received and the copy of same was forwarded to toe appellant for is comment The reply of appellant was also received on 19/08/2019 and was placed an record remand proceedings took-steps to frame the fresh assessment order in respect of the assessment year under appeal It is observed that that the AO had issued notices u/s 133(8) of the Act, to each 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, G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the rebuttal to remand report, the AR of the appellant company reiterated file same submissions and stated that compliance u/s 133(6) as well as appearance u/s 131 has been done by the director of the appellant company as well as file directors of all the 9 share applicant companies, the 9 share applicant companies were duly assessed either u/s 143(3) or u/s 143(1) of the Act for the relevant assessment year and by the own assertions of AO the money has come from related entities, thus the nature and source of moneys received are duly explained and no addition u/s 88 could have been made by the AO. 4.5. After considering the remand report and replies of the AR of the appellant it 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 appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hare application money with the appellant Promise Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. is in a sum of Rs. 10,00,99,187/- as on the 31.03.2009 and only a sum of 1,60,00,000/- was invested as share application money with the appellant, Sargam Suppliers Pvt Ltd. is in a sum of 110,00,96,595/- as on the 31.03.2009 and only a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- was invested as share application money with the appellant, Srijan Retailers Pvt. Ltd. is in a sum of Rs. 10,00,99,540/- as on the 31.03.2009 and only a sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- was invested as share application money with the appellant, Sumeru Dealers Pvt Ltd. is in a sum of Rs. 10,00,99,885/- as on the 31.03.2009 and only a sum of 160,00,000/- was invested as share 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 pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Assessing Officer by making the following observation: "...We find that the identity of the 5 parties investing in the share capital is not in doubt They are body corporates and their complete addressees are on record. This is the very first assessment in the life of the assesses company. The amounts were deposited by these 5 corporates per account payee cheques. These parties were not shareholders of the assesses company at the time when the case was reopened under section 147 or when the summons were issued to them. We find that the assesses has filed before the A O. copies of share application forms duty signed along with the complete addresses of the investors along with their IT. Me numbers, account payee cheque 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 Hindusth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r going through the. aforesaid materials, we agree with the Tribunal below that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the share applicants did not ham the means to make investment and that such investment actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee company. The receipt of sham capital money had been duly recorded in the books of the assessee company and the payment of share application money was also duly recorded in the audited account of each of the sham applicants. We, thus, find that both the authorities below on the basis of toe aforesaid materials on record were quite justified in deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- done by the Assessing Officer, we are of the view that the order, impugned does not suffer from any defect whatsoever and no question 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s reproduced as under: "The assessee having duly furnished the names, age, address, date of filing the application of share, number of shares of each subscriber there was no justification for the Assessing Officer for making the impugned addition because once the existence of the investors/share subscribers was proved, onus shift to the revenue to establish that either the share applicants were bogus or the impugned money belonged to the assessee itself." 5.1. The instant case is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 100 (Bom), wherein their Lordship have held as under: "In the case in hand, it was not disputed that the assessee had given the details of name and address of the shareholder, their PAN/GIR number and 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 de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....formed the basis of the addition that was made under section 68. Ultimately, whether the documentary materials which had been produced by the assessee were sufficient to displace the onus is a matter to be decided upon the facts of each case. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal having held that the assessee had duly discharged the onus, no substantial question of law would arise." 5.4. The instant case is further supported by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Namastey Chemicals (P) Ltd., [2013] 217 TAXMAN 25 (Guj) wherein their Lordship have held as under: "Where in respect of share application money received by assessee, it was apparent from records that large number of subscribers had responded to letters issued by Assessing Officer and submitted their affidavits, Tribunal was justified in deleting impugned addition 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 grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad not dealt with the issue judiciously and consistently with the evidence adduced during the course of the assessment proceedings by the appellant and the replies of the share applicants in respect of the share capital to warrant the inference that such share application monies received is unaccounted cash credit. There is no material brought on record to that effect and wild speculation of this genre cannot be passed off as gospel truth. Hence, I am inclined to accept the arguments tendered by the A/R of the appellant in this respect. In view of the above, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned addition made by invoking the provisions of Section 68 by the AO is not justified in the circumstances and accordingly direct him to delete such addition of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- made on this amount." 14. A perusal of the above reproduced relevant part of the order of the CIT(A) would reveal that the ld. 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. 10,61,00,00....