9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are trading business and out of which, the investment has been made in the assessee s company. Further, the assessee has submitted copy of balance sheet, income-tax return, company master data available on MCA website of the investor company which has details of its directors/shareholders and other relevant details as well as copy of confirmation from the investor company. Besides, the Assessing officer has also directly called for information from the investor company u/s 133(6) and has verified the same with the books of accounts of the assessee company. We therefore find that where the assessee has submitted all these documentation and the same has been duly examined by the Assessing officer by independently calling for the information and cross-verifying the same with the investor company and with the books of accounts of the assessee company, it cannot be held that the Assessing officer has failed to carry out proper verification of the transaction under consideration. We are of the considered view that there is no legal and justifiable basis to interfere with the findings of the Assessing officer as the necessary enquiries and examination as reasonably expected have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 may not be revised u/s 263 and may not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4. In response to the show-cause, the assessee filed its submissions. The submissions so filed were considered by the ld PCIT but not found acceptable and the assessment order was set aside to be made de novo after proper examination of genuineness of share capital and providing opportunity being heard to the assessee. Against the said findings, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR raised various contentions against the order so passed by the ld. PCIT, Jaipur and relied upon the written submissions, the contents thereof read as under: 1. The ld. PCIT passed order u/s 263 mentioning the basis that as per bank statement, investment in share by M/s Maxis Venturs Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known Happy Collection Pvt Ltd) shown ₹ 20,00,000/- as against subscription of share of ₹ 45,00,000/- which is factually wrong and without verifying complete bank statement as submitted by us during course of assessment proceeding. In facts, the assessee submitted bank statement of Investor Company as well as own bank account. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of total investment held as on date of balance sheet. In balance sheet showing a consolidated figure of all investment including investment to assessee company. The figure of investment in balance sheet as on 31-03-2011 is ₹ 2,48,93,845/- against investment to appellant company ₹ 45,00,000/- is still much higher than the investment made to appellant company and question of genuineness cannot arise due to decrease in investment figure of investor company on basis of such comparison. The investment by investor in appellant co. has been verified by other document like confirmation, bank account etc. separately. 4. For revision of any order u/s 263 there must be two conditions namely that the order of assessment is erroneous and that the order is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue which must be satisfied before the Commissioner may invoke his powers under Section 263 of the Act. In this case the fact is that all document to verify the transaction called by the A.O during assessment proceeding and also made further enquiry by calling information u/s 133(6) and verified from books of accounts and document submitted by appellant company. Hence revision is not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such details were filed or brought on record. Absence of such details during assessment proceedings make it an erroneous order. From the above facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the material available on record, the Assessing Officer failed to consider/apply his mind to the information available on record with regard to the unexplained share application money received from M/s Volplast Pvt. Ltd. Further, AO has also not verified the genuineness of the transaction, regarding the identity of the investor, his creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with reference to the source of money given to the assessee (availability of funds at that time). Thus, it is evident that the AO has not applied his mind to the issue in proper manner. 7. From the above facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the material available on record, the Assessing Officer failed to consider/apply his mind to the information available on record with regard to the verification and examination of the unexplained share application money as shown in the Balance-sheet filed during the course of re-assessment proceedings. Thus, the order passed on 31.12.2018 is w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be set-aside, which we shall be discussing in the subsequent paragraphs, it is to be restricted to examining the matter relating to share application money received from Maxius Ventures Ltd amounting to ₹ 45 lacs. 11. Having said that, it is not under dispute that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 to examine the genuineness of share application money received by the assessee from four entities including Maxius Ventures Ltd during the financial year relevant to impugned assessment year. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing officer examined the matter and called for information/explanation from the assessee including information sought directly u/s 133(6) of the Act. Basis such examination, he accepted the transactions relating to three entities including Maxius Ventures Ltd as genuine and in respect of the fourth entity, he held that the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was not proved and addition towards unexplained share application money was made u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore, it is not a case that the matter relating to Maxius Ventures Ltd was not examined by the Assessing officer during the course of reassessment pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf accepted the fact that the share application money atleast to the extent of ₹ 20 lacs has been received through the banking channel from Maxius Ventures, the identity and nature of the transaction is very much accepted by him. Regarding creditworthiness, the assessee has submitted that during the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee has submitted the copy of bank statement of the investor company which shows clearly the money standing to the credit of the investor company account from its share trading business and out of which, the investment has been made in the assessee s company. Further, the assessee has submitted copy of balance sheet, income-tax return, company master data available on MCA website of the investor company which has details of its directors/shareholders and other relevant details as well as copy of confirmation from the investor company. Besides, the Assessing officer has also directly called for information from the investor company u/s 133(6) and has verified the same with the books of accounts of the assessee company. We therefore find that where the assessee has submitted all these documentation and the same has been duly examined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
