9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. During the course of assessment, it was noticed by the Revenue that M/s. Manikya Plastichem Pvt. Ltd. had issued 50,000 equity shares at a face value of Rs. 10 each to the assessee herein and in the same year the said company had issued 4,00,000 equity shares at Rs. 25 per share to TDICI. The Assessing Officer having found the difference in the market value of the shares allotted to the assessee, treated the difference amount of Rs. 15 per share as an escaped income. 3. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Act on August 2, 1999, for which the assessee sent a detailed reply stating that as his family members being the promoters of M/s. Manikya Plastichem Pvt. Ltd. pursuant to an agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o him as an associate of a promoter. 5. The Tribunal having heard the parties, found that the shares were allotted to the assessee as a promoter of the company and having held that the shares were allotted to him pursuant to the agreement dated November 9, 1995, allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Assessing Officer. 6. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the Revenue raising the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the reopening of assessments made by the Assessing Officer was without jurisdiction; as it was on account of mere change of opinion whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. According to him, he is also a director of the company. A copy of the agreement entered into between TDICI and M/s. Manikya Plastichem Pvt. Ltd. dated November 9, 1995, is also produced before us. Learned counsel for the assessee relying upon special condition (2) of the agreement contends that the assessee has been allotted shares at the rate of Rs. 10 since he happens to be an associate of a promoter of the company. Therefore, he contends that the question of law framed by the Revenue has to be answered against it in view of the findings of the Tribunal. 10. Mr. Seshachala, counsel for the Revenue, contends that the assessee herein is only an employee-cum-director and not a promoter. He being not a promoter of the company, he cannot r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
