2017 (5) TMI 349 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - addition on share capital received - Held that - Nothing was brought on record to counter the findings of the AO and CIT(A), except stating that reopening was based on suspicious nature of information. Neither the reasons for reopening nor the statements provided to assessee in the course of assessment proceedings were placed on record. Even the copy of the objections stated to have been filed before the AO were not placed on record. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the findings of the AO and CIT(A) cannot be disturbed. - Decided against assessee Coming to the merits of addition assessee did file not only the copies of the confirmations received from the above said three companies but also the statements of banks through which the funds have been transferred/received. Not only that the copies of the assessment orders completed in those cases were also placed on record indicating that prima-facie assessee has discharged his onus. However, as submitted, the AO was not in receipt of such confirmations from the said three parties, before he completed the assessment on 19-02-2014. Ld.CIT(A) without examining the facts, confirmed the addition on legal principles. Therefore, it is of the opinion that AO should examine whether those companies have invested in assessee-company. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Reopening of assessment and addition of ?45 Lakhs as share capital received.

Reopening of Assessment:
The appeal involved issues related to the reopening of assessment based on information received from the Investigation Unit in Delhi. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under section 148 due to the receipt of share capital from companies involved in accommodation entries. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the reopening, citing the principles established by the Supreme Court. The appellant contested the reopening, arguing that it was based on suspicion and lacked fresh information. However, the Tribunal found that proper procedures were followed by the AO and upheld the reopening, as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to furnish necessary information. The Tribunal concluded that without any contrary evidence, the findings of the AO and CIT(A) could not be disturbed, and thus rejected the grounds related to the reopening of assessment.

Addition of ?45 Lakhs:
Regarding the addition of ?45 Lakhs as share capital received, the appellant provided confirmations from the investing companies and bank statements to support the legitimacy of the funds. However, the AO did not receive these confirmations before completing the assessment. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition based on legal principles without examining the facts. The Tribunal decided to set aside the AO's order and restore the issue of examining the share capital received to the AO for further investigation. The Tribunal directed the AO to determine whether the investing companies indeed contributed to the share capital, emphasizing that the appellant should be given a fair opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the grounds related to the addition of ?45 Lakhs were considered allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal was partly allowed in favor of the assessee.

In summary, the Tribunal addressed the issues of reopening the assessment and the addition of ?45 Lakhs as share capital received. The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment based on information received from the Investigation Unit in Delhi and rejected the appellant's contentions of suspicion. Regarding the addition of ?45 Lakhs, the Tribunal directed the AO to reexamine the facts related to the share capital received, emphasizing the importance of giving the appellant a fair opportunity to present its case.