TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....affidavit and after hearing the Ld. DR, the delay in filing of the CO is condoned and the CO is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private company, engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities. It filed its return of income on 23.12.2011 declaring total loss of Rs. 26,873/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 21.03.2014 by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata assessing the total loss at Rs. 2,753/-. 4. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by recording the following reasons: "Credible information was received wherein it was reported that a search & seizure operation u/s 132 and survey operation u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the various premises of Mittal Group on 31.10.2017. During the search and survey it was found that M/s VISTA NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED has received share premium from various Kolkata based companies, the creditworthiness of whom remained unexplained, amounting to Rs. 24,11,50,000/-, during the FY 2010-11 i.e. A.Y. 2011-12. According to inputs received, information from credible source....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee vide letter dated 06.12.2018 requested the Assessing Officer to provide the reasons for reopening the assessment. The assessee was duly communicated the reasons for reopening the assessment which were reproduced in the preceding para No.4. The assessee vide letter dated 12.12.2018 objected to the reopening of the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act on various grounds. The Assessing Officer rejected the objections raised by the assessee by passing a speaking order dated 13.12.2018. 7. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has received share capital and share premium money of Rs. 24,11,50,000/- from nine companies, the details of which are as under: Sr. No. Name & Occupation of allottee Office address No. of shares allotted Total Amount including premium paid 1 M/s. Baron Sales Private Ltd 27 Weston Street, 3rd Floor, Room No.-338, Kolkata 20,00,000 20,00,000/- 2 M/s. Ford Developers Pvt. Ltd. 27 Weston Street, 3rd Floor, Room No.-338, Kolkata 1,72,500 8,62,50,000/- 3 M/s. Prabhu Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 27 Weston Street, 3rd Floor, Room No.-338, Kolkata 12,000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd / insufficient address / not known, etc'. After considering the reply given by the assessee and relying on various decisions, the Assessing Officer concluded that the share application money so received by the assessee company from the above mentioned companies is nothing but the assessee's own money. He, therefore, treated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and made addition of Rs. 24,11,47,250/- to the total income of the assessee. 9. Before the CIT(A), the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act by recording as under: "6.3 I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, assessment order, grounds of appeal and submission of the appellant. The appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 24,11,50,0001- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of share application money with share premium received during the year. The appellant has also challenged the addition on the ground that the amendment made in section 68 by the Finance Bill, 2012 is effective from 01.04.2013 and therefore ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of such reserves generally results into increase in share capital or reduction of some specified liabilities on capital account. Use of Share Premium is also to keep the strength of financial structure undiluted. It is either converted into capital or reduces liabilities. Therefore, share premium cannot be considered as revenue at any stage like time of use or time of receipt. b) Share Premium-Treatment under IT Act, 1961 i) Till AY 2012-13 the share premium received by a Company was not deemed as income. ii) Deeming provisions as per Sec 56(2)(viib) (inserted w.e.f 01.04.2013) is applicable only in case of shares issued at premium by closely held Companies (subject to some exceptions). This is not applicable to I Companies listed on recognized stock exchange. In case of issue of shares at premium by listed Companies, share premium is not considered as income. In case of unlisted Companies, premium can be considered as income when price charged at time of issue of share is more that face value and also is higher than FMV. In such a case, the excess of issue price above FMV will be held as income. But this is applicable from AY 2013-14 onwards and not in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnot be invoked in AY 2012-13 as evidence was led by the assessee before the AO w.r.t identity and capacity of investor and genuineness of investment. * Therefore, the AO did not invoke Sec 68 of Act to bring share premium to tax. * CIT(A) rightly held that Sec 68 cannot be invoked. h) It is pertinent to note that in AY 2011-12 the definition of income u/s 2(24) of Act did not define income as any consideration received for issue of shares in excess of its FMV. This came into effect w.e.f 01.04.2013 only and would not apply to the share premium received by Appellant during AY 2011-12. Similarly the amendment to Sec 68 by addition of proviso was made subsequent to AY 2012-13 and cannot be invoked. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in CIT vs Mis Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd. in 394 ITR 680 (Born) dated 20.03.2017 held that proviso to Sec 68 will have prospective effect only from AY 2013-14 onwards. Thus, in view of above facts the share premium received by Appellant of Rs. 24,11,50,0001- during AY 2011-12 cannot be considered as 'Income' of Appellant as it was considered as capital receipt in FY 2010-11 and addition u/s 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... apply the provisions of sec. 68 of the Act. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 47,97,10,0001-." Reliance is also placed on recent decision of Jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of SLS Energy Pvt. Ltd. dated 27-06'-2023, Writ Petition 331 of 2016, 2023-TIOL-817-HC-MUM-IT, wherein it has been held that Receipt of share capital including share premium was on capital account and give rise to no income and hence no addition can be called for u/s 56(2)(viib) of the income tax Act, 1961 Considering the Board's Instruction No. 2/2015 vide F No. 500/15/2014APA-\ dated 29.01.2015 and respectfully following the Hon'ble High Court Bombay's decision in the case of SLS Energy Pvt. Ltd. dated 27-06-2023, Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Others (2014) 368 ITR 01 (Bombay HC) and Hon'ble ITAT 'G' Bench decision in the case of Green Infra Ltd. ITA No. 7762/Mum/2012 dated 23.8.2013, I am of the Opinion that Share capital with premium amount received by the appellant of Rs. 24, 11,50,0001- is in the nature of capital and same cannot be assessed u/s 68 of the IT Act. j) In view of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Honourable High Court Bombay in M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd. in 394 ITR 680 & in PCIT Vs. Apeak Infotech in 397 ITR 148 and in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. 12. The assessee has raised the following grounds in its Cross Objection: Grounds of cross-objections Following grounds have not decided by the learned CIT(A) as mentioned in Para 6.6 of the order: 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in initiating the re-assessment proceedings after 4 years from the end of the A.Y.2011-12, as admittedly there is no failure to disclose all primary facts in the regular assessment proceedings completed under Sec.143(3)of the Act. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer has further erred in initiating re-assessment proceedings on mere change of opinion as issues of allotment of shares and share premium were examined in the regular assessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer by issuance of notices under Sec.133(6) r/w Sec.l42(2) of the Act to respective parties. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer further erred in re- opening the completed assessment without any tangible material before him at the time of issuing Notice under Sec.148 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rns with meager or nil income, the creditworthiness of the investor companies remained unsatisfactory and therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. For the above proposition, the Ld. DR relied on the following decisions: 1. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd (SC) 2. Shankar Industries vs CIT (Calcutta HC) 3. Nipun Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC) 4. Kottex Industries (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT (Gujarat HC) 5. BalGopal Merchants (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (Calcutta HC) 6. Mukesh Shaw v. ITO (Jharkhand HC) 7. B.R. Petroleum (P.) Ltd vs ITO (Madras HC) 8. Seema Jain vs ACIT, New Delhi (Delhi HC) 15. Referring to the following decisions, the Ld. DR submitted that when the notices remained un-served and the amount received through paper or nonexistent companies, the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer: 1. Konark Structural Engineers (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (SC) 2. CIT Vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) (Delhi HC) 3. CIT vs Sophia Finance Ltd. (Delhi HC) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese grounds. Therefore, he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication of those grounds. 18. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand submitted that the original assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 21.03.2014, copy of which is placed at pages 211 and 212 of paper book. Referring to the said assessment order, he drew attention of the Bench to the observations of the Assessing Officer at para 1.3 of the order, according to which the information were sought for by issuing letters to various parties by invoking the provisions of section 133(6) of the Act. Replies received from those companies were placed on record. After examining those details the Assessing Officer has passed the order. Referring to the copy of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer which were supplied to the assessee and placed at pages 39 and 40 of the paper book, he submitted that in the reasons so recorded which is after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, there is no mention of any allegation that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....023-TIOL-1051-HC-MUM-IT ii) Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. vs. Union of India, 159 taxmann.com 5 iii) ACIT v. Virbac Animal Health India Pvt. Ltd., 453 ITR 794 (SC) iv) PCIT v. L & T Ltd., 113 taxmann.com 48 (SC) 23. He submitted that the issue of share capital with premium was thoroughly examined by the Assessing Officer while passing the original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 21.03.2014. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment had issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to all the nine shareholder companies and got their replies along with the relevant documents. Therefore, reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act is nothing but change of opinion. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the assessment cannot be reopened due to change of opinion: a) Marico Ltd. v. ACIT (Writ Petition No.1917 of 2019, dt. 21.08.2019) b) State Bank of India v. ACIT, 96 taxmann.com 77 c) GRI Towers India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, 160 taxmann.com 215 24. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC), he submitted that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ii) CIT vs. Gangadeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 394 ITR 680 (Bom) (iii) Appolo Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in Writ Peition (L) No.3393 of 2017 dated 15.09.2017 (iv) PCIT v. Paradise Inland Shipping (P.) Ltd., 400 ITR 439 (Bom) (v) SLP against the order has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23.04.2018 reported in 93 taxmann.com 84 (vi) Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT, 280 ITR 512 (Guj) (vii) Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO, 219 CTR 571 (Raj) (viii) CIT vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd., 330 ITR 298 (Delhi) (ix) Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT, 103 ITR 344 (Patna) (x) DCIT v. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (xi) Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO, 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (xii) ITO vs. Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd., 70 SOT 368 (xiii) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gau) (xiv) CIT v. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd., 237 Taxman 104 29. He submitted that when the assessee has proved the source of the investor companies by producing their PAN, letters of confirmation, bank statements, audited balance sheet, etc. and the assessee is not required to prove the sour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act is clearly applicable which reads as under: "147..... Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: ......" 32. We find the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Akshar Anshul Construction LLP vs. ACIT (supra) while quashing the re-assessment proceedings on account of reasons not having any allegation of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts for completion of assessment for reopening of the assessment has observed as under: "7. It is a settled position in law that where assessment has been completed by scrutiny under Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment order for Assessment Year 2015-16 where it was found that the commencement certificate for the project was received only on 21 st September, 2010 in the name of the Petitioner. Therefore, there was a failure on the part of the Petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for amendments. We find that, the reasons in support of the impugned notice, merely mentions about the Assessment for Assessment Year 2015-16. However, it does not mention of any failure to disclose the correct date of commencement being a fact which came to the knowledge of the Revenue while passing the Assessment Order for Assessment Year 2015-16. This fact, according to Mr. Mohanty is evident from the Assessment Order for Assessment Year 2015-16 and it has to be read into the reasons given in support of the impugned notice. This, submission is contrary to the decision of this Court in Hindustan Lever v/s. R. B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 - wherein this Court has held as under:- " The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assesssee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quashed and set aside. Petition allowed in the above terms." 33. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France (supra) has observed as under: "Section 148 read with sections 147 and 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - issue of notice for - Assessment years 1988-99 to 1990-91 - Petitioner-foreign company was engaged in business of oil exploration and providing expertise and assistance in said field - Proceeds from manning and management contracts received by petitioner were originally assessed in February, 1991 under section 143(3) treating same as business income in terms of section 44BB - However, following Tribunal's decision rendered in case of petitioner's expatriate employee, Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 in November, 1998 seeking to reassess same income as fees for technical services - Whether law prevailing on date of issue of impugned notice would apply to instant case, and since new section 147 had come into force with effect from 1-4-1989, provisions of that section were applicable - Held, yes - Whether since admittedly there was no failure on part of petitioner to make return or to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The fact that the petitioner was acting as an agent for a foreign principal was disclosed. 12) The notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 does not state that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment for assessment year 2002-03. The assessment was sought to be reopened after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In such a case the jurisdictional condition precedent stipulated by the proviso to Section 147 is a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year consequent upon which income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. That has not been fulfilled. The notice does not even purport to state so. The ground furnished in the notice for reassessment would at the highest indicate that according to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, allocation of expenses as between the petitioner and the foreign principal ought to have been originally considered by the Assessing Officer when the order of assessment was passed under secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Assessing Officer has accepted the Petitioner's/Assessee's submissions, so as to not deal with that issue in the assessment order. In fact, our Court in GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. V/s. Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1) (371) ITR 225 had occasion to dealt with the similar/identical submissions on behalf of the Revenue viz. that an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act does not reflect any consideration of the issue, it must follow that no opinion was formed by the Assessing Officer in the regular assessment proceedings. This submission was negatived by this Court by observing as follows :- 14. According to the Revenue, it could only be when the assessment order contains discussion with regard to particular claim can it be said that the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion with regard to the claim made by the assessee. This Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 301 ITR 407 has expressly negatived on identical contention on behalf of the Revenue. The Court held that once all the material was placed before the Assessing Officer and he chose not to refer to to the deduction/ claim whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t its hand. In the above view, it is clear that once a query has been raised during the assessment proceedings and the Petitioner has responded to the query to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer as is evident from the fact that the Assessment Order dated 9^th March, 2005 accepts the Petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80IA/IB of the Act. It must follow that there is due application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the issue raised. The above observations apply on all fours to this Petition, so far as the Revenue's submission of no change of opinion is concerned. 11. The further submission of Mr. Walve that in the absence of the Assessing Officer adjudicating upon the issue it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion during the regular assessment proceedings leading to the order dated 30 January 2018. An adjudication would only be on such issue where the assessee's submissions are not acceptable to the Revenue, then the occasion to decide a lis would arise i.e. adjudication. However, where the Revenue accepts the view propounded by the assessee in response to the Revenue's query, the Assessing Officer has certainly to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l statements, etc. has completed the assessment u/s 143(3) accepting the genuineness of such investments by them in the shares of the assessee company. We find an identical issue had come up before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Projects Development Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. In Writ Petition No.804 of 2015, judgment dated 01.02.2024. In that case the assessee was in the business of development of real estate and assessed to income tax for the assessment year 2009-10 had filed its return of income on 07.09.2009 and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 21.12.2011. While passing the order, the Assessing Officer had called for various details such as details of shareholding pattern of the company. In the Cash Flow statement filed it was stated that the assessee has received share premium of Rs. 21,50,11,618/- which was used for redemption of preference shares. The assessee was also called upon to furnish various other details which were submitted and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment accepting loss Rs. 87,362/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened on the ground that the assessee is a new company incorporated on 15.03.200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f and come to a conclusion that any income has escaped assessment as there is no live link between the reasons as recorded and the material on record for forming a belief that any income chargeable under the Act has escaped assessment. (c) The issue of shares and the receipt of share premium were examined during the course of regular assessment proceedings by respondent no.1 by raising specific queries. Petitioner furnished all the details relating to the receipt of share premium and the issue of shares during the year in the course of the assessment proceedings and also justified the valuation by producing the report of a valuer. The statutory compliance documents relating to the issue of shares and receipt of share premium were filed during the course of the assessment proceedings with respondent no.1. The same have been examined in the course of the assessment proceedings and hence, there is no fresh material coming into existence in relation to issue of shares and receipt of share premium. Therefore, the reopening is based on a mere change of opinion. Respondent no.1 has no power of review by engaging in a roving or fishing inquiry under the Act. (d) The charg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and such a huge share premium in the open market particularly when it has returned income of (-) Rs. 87,362/-. According to the AO, there has been underassessment of income received in the garb of share application money. The AO has not considered the valuation report or the balance sheet of the company and, therefore, the basis to reopen is purely hypothetical or a matter of conjecture or speculative. The reasons to believe does not dispute that this is a share premium that the company received but seeks justification for charging the share premium over and above intrinsic value of the share. 6 Mr. Suresh Kumar submitted as under:- (a) As held in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. this would amount to cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and whenever the same is found credited in the books of account of assessee, then irrespective of the colour and nature of the sum received which is sought to be given by assessee, the ITO has the jurisdiction to enquire from assessee the nature and source of the amount. (b) We have to reject this submission because this is not the basis on which the reasons to believe has been arrived at. It is settle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the AO while completing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query raised. The only requirement is that the AO ought to have considered, the objection now raised in the grounds for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, during the original assessment proceedings. In the case at hand, the AO having raised a query and the petitioner having replied to it, it follows that the query raised was subject of consideration of the AO while passing the assessment order dated 21 st December 2011. In our view, the re-opening of assessment by the impugned notice is merely on the basis of change of opinion of the AO from that held earlier during the course of assessment proceedings and this change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Paragraph 14 of the Aroni Commercials Ltd. (Supra) reads as under: 14) We find that during the assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer. The only requirement is that the Assessing Officer ought to have considered the objection now raised in the grounds for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, during the original assessment proceedings. There can be no doubt in the present facts as evidenced by a letter dated 8 September 2012 the very issue of taxability of sale of shares under the head capital gain or the head profits and gains from business was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings leading to an order dated 12 October 2010. It would therefore, following that the Meera Jadhav 13/18 203-wp-804-15(judgment).doc reopening of the assessment by impugned notice dated 28 March 2013 is merely on the basis of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer from that held earlier during the course of assessment proceeding leading to the order dated 12 October 2010. This change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment." (emphasis supplied) 10. In SLS Energy Ltd. (Supra) the reasons for reopening were similar. In that case also the balance sheet indicated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....where no scrutiny assessment has taken place, reassessment can be ordered only if the assessing officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The Apex Court in Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers(P.)Ltd.[2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC) has clearly held that notice for reopening an assessment under section 148 of the Act could only be justified if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 26. The reason for the assessing officer to reopen the assessment is his belief that the share premium charged by the Petitioner was excessive and further that the transaction of the so called share premium was not established. In other words, the assessing officer apart from questioning the excessive share premium also is doubting the transaction, whereby the share premium had been received. Whether in the aforementioned facts the assessing officer could be said to have his reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and whether the material with the said assessing officer could be said to have any tangible material justifying the reopening is the issue that falls for our co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lakhs shares of the face value of rupee 1 per share. Had the Assessing Officer any real doubts regarding the transaction itself, then there was no justification for him to question only the transaction with regard to the extent of the amount of premium charged for the said shares. 30. We therefore of the opinion that there was neither any basis for the assessing officer for his reason to believe that income had escaped assessment nor was there any tangible material which would have otherwise given jurisdiction to reopen the assessment even when the reopening was sought to be made within a period of four years." (emphasis supplied) 11 Even in the case at hand, the reasons recorded for reopening does not dispute that during the year assessee had issued 16730 shares of face value of Rs. 10/- at premium of Rs. 12842/- per share. The AO is only questioning the excessive share premium but not doubting the transaction itself Meera Jadhav 16/18 203-wp-804-15(judgment).doc whereby the share premium had been received. On this ground alone, the impugned notice and order on objections have to be quashed and set aside. 12 In any event, the amendments incorporated in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 63 ITR 219, that it is open to examine whether the reason to believe has rational connection with the formation of the belief. To the same effect, the Apex Court in ITO v. Lakhmani Merwal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 had laid down that the reasons to believe must have rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of belief i.e. there must be a live link between material coming the notice of the Assessing Officer and the formation of belief regarding escapement of income. If the aforesaid requirement are not met, the Assessee is entitled to challenge the very act of re-opening of Assessment and assuming jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer. 13. In this case, the reasons as made available to the Respondent- Assessee as produced before the Tribunal merely indicates information received from the DIT (Investigation) about a particular entity, entering into suspicious transactions. However, that material is not further linked by any reason to come to the conclusion that the Respondent-Assessee has indulged in any activity which could give rise to reason to believe on the part of the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax has escaped Assessment. I....