9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of Rs. 15,67,92,000/- received during the year under consideration. As noted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, the assessee, however, failed to comply with the said requirement. The Assessing Officer, therefore, treated the entire share premium amount of Rs. 15,67,92,000/- received by the assessee-company during the year under consideration as unexplained cash credit and addition to that extent was made by him to the total income of the assessee under section 68. 3. The addition of Rs. 15,67,92,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 by treating the share premium amount as unexplained cash credit was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the following submissions in writing were made on behalf of the assessee in support of its case on this issue:- "During the year, the assessee raised share capital of Rs. 27,80,000/- and securities premium of Rs. 15,67,92,000/- by allotting 2,78,000 shares at a face value of Rs.I0/- per shares and premium of Rs. 564/-per share. Detailed list of allottees, their addresses, PAN details, no. of shares all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal. d. The Assessing Officer made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. The appellant's case is clearly falling under exception (d) to Rule 46A. It is further submitted that it is the right of Board of Directors of the company to decide the premium amount. The Board of Directors in the meeting held on 25.03.2014 resolved to issue the shares at a face value of Rs. 10/- per share and premium of Rs. 564/- per share. A copy of the Board Resolution is enclosed at page 2 of the paper book. More so, the premium charged was duly corroborated by the Networth of the company. Further, the company was not required to prove the genuineness, purpose or justification for charging premium of shares. To buttress the contention of the assessee, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure M. Ltd. (2014) 40 CCH 0128 Mum. Trib... CIT vs. Anshika Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 93 CCH 0016 Del. HC CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 11UA, it appears that the same was submitted on the date of assessment order but definitely after the finalization of the assessment order. Further, the same has no bearing on the addition u/s.68 in light of failure on the part of the assessee to substantiated the creditworthiness/source of fund in the hands of the share-subscribers. Para No. 5- The submission of the assessee that the assessment was made without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to ground of appeal is not factually correct. There was utter non- compliance on the part of the assessee as noted hereinbefore. The assessee was informed about the non-compliance on the part of share- subscribers and was asked to show cause as to why the amount of share premium claimed to have been received not to be added back u/s.68 of the Act. The assessee had filed Valuation Report under Rule 11UA [though after the completion of the assessment] but did not reply to the show cause notice nor sought any adjournment for that purpose. Therefore, it is not correct that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard, Para No.6 - The submission of the assessee is applicable i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e numerous decision against the above submission of the assessee. The befitting reply to the observations of the assessee lies in the observations of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s. Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd.[supra]. The above comments may kindly be noted with the fact that the assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer about the creditworthiness of the investors vis-a-vis genuineness of the transactions, in spite of the fact that the assessee was given reasonable opportunity of being heard". 5. The remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer was sent by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the assessee-company for its comments/rejoinder. The assessee was also called upon by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to show-cause as to why even the amount of Rs. 27,80,000/- received during the year under consideration on account of share capital along with the share premium should not be added to its total income under section 68 and the income to that extent should not be enhanced. As noted by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee, however, failed to offer any explanation in this regard. Keeping in view this failure of the assessee as well as for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not only confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of share premium amount by treating the same as unexplained cash credit but also made a further addition of Rs. 27,80,000/- by treating even the share capital amount as unexplained cash credit. He has contended that the assessee-company is in a position to produce all the share subscribers along with the relevant documentary evidence for the verification of the Assessing Officer and urged that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to do so by sending the matter back to the Assessing Officer keeping in view the violation of principles of natural justice by the authorities below. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case as explained by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, we consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to give one more opportunity to the assessee-company to explain the relevant cash credit representing share capital and share premium amount in terms of section 68 by producing the concerned share subscribers along with the relevant documentary evidence for verification before the Assessing Officer. Even the ld. D.R. has not raised any objection for sending the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
