TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Gurgaon (for brevity 'Ld. AO'), order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 22.12.2018. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total loss of Rs. 1,18,58,181/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had allotted shares at a premium and received an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,24,43,765/- from non-resident investors and Rs. 13,85,621/- from resident investors. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that, in respect of the share capital/share premium received from the non-resident investors, the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar amount to Rs. 1,26,47,895/-. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not grant the relief sought by the assessee and declined the assessee's request for restoration of the matter to the Ld. AO, inter alia, on the ground that the assessment had not been framed ex parte under section 144 of the Act. Consequently, the additions made by the Ld. AO were upheld. Being aggrieved by the impugned appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR argued and filed a paper book comprising pages 1 to 236 which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR contended that related to the addition of share capital received from the non-resident subscriber, the assessee was not able to file the details of bank statements before the Ld. CIT(A). During th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itworthiness of the investors. In an environment where the Government in general and the Legislature in particular, are actively pursuing and persuading the citizenry to dissuade the opaque practices in order to thwart the black money, it was incumbent upon the appellant to requisition the foundational documents from the investors before they accepted the credits in the form of share capital and share premium. Nonetheless, I see no reason as to why the appellant cannot requisition the same from the active investors at any point of time, with a little difficulty though. (ii). As regards the judicial pronouncements cited by the appellant, it is very clearly noted that the facts of the case at hand are quite distinct. While the judgme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te that as per Instruction No. 8/2017 of CBDT dated 29/09/2017, where show-cause notice contemplating any adverse view is issued by the Ld. AO and the assessee requests for personal hearing to explain the matter, a particular hearing may take place manually. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Ld. AO to grant a personal hearing if a request for the same has been made by the assessee. However, in the present case despite the request being made by the assessee for personal hearing the same was denied and the order was passed without such hearing. The additions were made by the officer on the following grounds: a. The Ld. AO rejected the valuation report of the assessee on the basis that the assessee has not submitted the anticipated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the additions made under sections 68 and 56(2)(viib) of the Act were justified. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed for upholding the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The principal grievance of the assessee relates to the additions made in respect of share capital/share premium received from non-resident as well as resident shareholders. The addition in respect of the non-resident shareholders was made under section 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the transactions. In respect of the resident shareholders, the addition was made under section 56(2)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted at the appellate stage, the same was required to be examined in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 46A of the Rule, including by affording the Ld. AO an appropriate opportunity to examine the evidence and furnish his comments thereon. The fact that the assessment was not framed under section 144, by itself, does not dispense with the procedural requirement governing consideration of additional evidence. 7. We also find that the assessee has now placed before us further documents, including the bank statements and e-KYC particulars of the non-resident shareholders, which, according to the assessee, have a direct bearing upon the identity and creditworthiness of the subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions....