TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....UN/2024, dated 05/08/2024. 2. First we will take up MA No. 22/PUN/2025 filed against the cross objection i.e. CO No. 03/PUN/2024, dated 05/08/2024. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee referring to the contents of this Misc. Application submitted that in the impugned order deciding the assessee's cross objection, the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment on following two counts:- (a) Change of opinion; and, (b) No failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts in the return of income which was selected for scrutiny assessment completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and reopening has been carried out beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 4.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the original assessment proceedings was completed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 28.03.2014. From the perusal of the assessment order, it would suggest that the issue of receipt of share capital/share premium was never examined by the AO. Therefore, it cannot be said that the AO formed an opinion as to the genuineness or otherwise of the transaction of receipt of share capital/share premium. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a mere change of opinion. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Tech Span India Pvt. Ltd.(2018) 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "12. Before interfering with the proposed re-opening of the assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re is no discussion about second limb of legal argument regarding validity of reopening in spite of the reopening after four years the original assessment completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and whether there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts. Ld. DR failed to controvert the contentions made by the learned counsel for the assessee. We therefore, find merit in the Misc. Application filed by the assessee and accordingly, allow the same and direct the Registry to re-fix the cross objection No. 03/PUN/2024 in due course for the limited purpose of adjudicating the second limb of legal issue raised by the assessee as to whether under the given facts and circumstances of the case where reopenin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deduced from the above decisions are that mere production of incorporation details, PAN Numbers, etc. receipt of money through banking channel prove the Identity and creditworthiness of investors but not the genuineness of the transaction is not established by merely contending that transaction was done through banking channel or account payee instrument. The assessee company has to discharge the onus cast upon it by demonstrating as to how the two parties are known to each other, the manner and mode by which the parties approached each other, whether transaction was entered through written agreement to protect the investment, creditworthiness, objects and purpose for which the investment was made. In the present case, these facts and infor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Fund Scheme-1. Learned counsel for the assessee referring to para 24 of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order stated that it has been mentioned that Share Subscription and Shareholders Agreement (SSSHA) between the assessee and the alleged two cash creditors has been filed which is duly registered and stamp duty of Rs. 12,43,100/- has also been paid and even the AO was asked to submit remand report in respect of SSSHA. However, Hon'ble Tribunal while confirming the addition has wrongly observed that no shareholders agreement is filed and therefore this is stated to be an apparent mistake in the impugned order. 11. Learned counsel for the assessee also submitted that this Tribunal has held that finding of Ld. CIT(A) is bald and he has failed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provision of section 68 of the Act on the investments received by the assessee company from two investors; namely, Rainbow Ventures Ltd., Mauritius and Ambit Pragma Fund Scheme-1 have not been considered by this Tribunal which clearly indicates that the impugned order suffers from serious apparent mistakes and the impugned finding has been arrived at without adjudication of various material facts referred above and placed before this Tribunal during the course of hearing. 13. On the other hand, ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the findings of this Tribunal. 14. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the averments made in the Misc. Application and also submission of the learned counsel for the assessee through which, an ap....