TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1615
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccept the appeal for hearing on merits. 3. The revenue in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 3,84,00,000/- treating the proceeds from sale of shares/investments as unaccounted income of the assessee. Whereas, the assessee in its Cross Objection has challenged the validty of the reopening of the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. First, we take up revenue's appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that earlier the assessee filed its return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 15.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 16,25,290/-. Later, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of 'Rika Group' on 11.02.2020. During examination of the seized documents, certain facts came up that the assessee had raised bogus share capital/premium to the tune of Rs. 7,83,00,000/- during the Financial Year (FY) 2007-08 and the same was utilized for investing in unlisted equities which were liquidated later on in a sole motive to routing back its unaccounted money in its regular books of account. Based on the facts, it was opined since the generation of the fund was bogus, which was r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the reconciliation provided by the assessee was found in order, however, he observed that since the department was of the belief that the sale of investment was bogus and the allegations were strong, therefore, he made the addition of Rs. 3,84,00,000/- for the year under consideration. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and evidence on the file and observed that the assessee had duly proved the source of investments as the assessee had received the amount from issue of share capital and share premium amounting to Rs. 7,83,00,000/- in the FY 2007- 08 relevant to AY 2008-09. Further, the assessment for AY 2008-09 was also reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and the said issue relating to receipt of share application/share premium was also examined and accepted, therefore, the source of investments in the hands of the assessee right from the FY 2007-08 was accepted. He further observed that the assessee had made the investments in shares out of the said amount. He further observed that even the assessee had furnished all the details and evidences. That, even, the replies received from the sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst sale of investments, investments in which were made out of the share capital raised in FY 2007-08. The AO alleged that the concerns to whom the investments were sold don't hold genuineness, Identity and creditworthiness as these are enlisted in the departmental database of shell companies and without giving any benefit of deduction of cost of investments added the proceeds from sale of investments to the total income of the assessee as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. However, it is observed that the companies to whom the investments were sold have been registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and transactions have been made through banking channels. It may also be noted that the source of investments which has been liquidated during the A.Y. 2013- 14 has been verified by the preceding Assessing Officer. 5.2.4. It may be noted that as per Section 68 of the Act, 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as in the immediately preceding year i.e. AY 2012-13, the assessee sold some of the investments. The assessment for both the assessment years were reopened i.e. for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14. The issue of sale of investments already stood examined and accepted for AY 2012-13 by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, it is not the case of any bogus profit earned on the sale of investments. The investments have been sold at par. There is not any income introduced by the assessee from the said sale of shares in the year under consideration. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is accordingly upheld. The appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 8. Now, coming to the Cross Objections of the assessee. The assessee in its Cross Objections has agitated about the validity of the reopening of the assessment. He, at the outset, has invited our attention to the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment, copy of which has been placed at page 79 of the paper book. A perusal of the reasons recorded would reveal that the allegation in the said reasons are general and vague. Even, in the said reasons, it has been mentioned that the assessee ha....