9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner and the ITAT misapplied the law and that the findings in the impugned order are unreasonable. 2. The brief facts are that the assessee for AY 2003-04 reported over Rs. 96,25,000/- as a receipt and for AY 2004-05 Rs. 1,50,04,515/-. After the assessment was framed, a notice under Section 147/148 was issued which led to the reopening of the assessment. The AO by his order, added Rs. 93,45,000/- on his conclusion that various amounts received from 21 parties were suspect. The AO's findings were based upon his appreciation of the facts which are that upon issuance of summons under Section 131 none of the parties reported or joined the proceedings. 3. The CIT (A) on the one hand upheld the reopening of the assessment but on the other, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid amount of Rs. 93,45,000/- has been received during the year under consideration by the appellant from 21 persons listed in the assessment order. However the perusal of the balance sheet as on 31.03.2003 reveals that no new money has been introduced during the year under consideration. This also implies that there has neither been fresh loan nor fresh share capital introduced in the accounts of the appellant company during the year under consideration. The perusal of the account of the appellant company does not leave any room for doubt that the said amount was nothing but the sale proceeds of the shares which have already been shown by the appellant in the profit & loss account for A.Y.2003-04. When the sale proceeds of the shares have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctly emanated from the assessee so that it could be said that the assessee's own money was brought back in the guise of sale proceeds of the shares. Though, the purchasers of the shares could not be examined by the AO, since they were existing on the file of the Income Tax Department and their Income Tax details were made available to the AO, it was equally the duty of the AO to have taken steps to verify their assessment records and if necessary to also have them examined by the respective AOs having jurisdiction over them which has not been done by him." 4. The ITAT agreed with the conclusions of the CIT (A) upon its independent examination of the record. It also discounted the Revenue's submissions that the investment shown in the book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
