9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reopening is bad in law. Thus, the Navodaya Case will not be applicable in the present case as the assessee has given the substantial evidence during the course of original assessment along with confirmation to the AO. The same was ignored by the AO. Hence, on this issue the Ground No. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed. CIT(A) upheld the contention of the assessee that assessee has not received any share capital from M/s VR Traders and M/s Shriniwas Leasing Finance. It also held that the amount in the case of Kuberco Sales Pvt. Ltd. And M/s Shriniwas Leasing Finance has been mentioned twice. Accordingly the CIT(A) held that the disputed amount of the share capital on the basis of which addition has been made by the AO comes - CIT(A) afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 6th December, 2006 thereby assessee submitted all the details including the details of the share application money received during the year along with confirmation and documentary evidences thereof (Paper Book Pg. 25-26, relevant Para 8 on Page 26.) The AO thereafter completed the assessment u/s 143(3) vide order dated 29th December, 2006 (Paper Book Pg. 30-33). Thereafter the assessee received a notice u/s 148 dated 30th March, 2011. The assessee filed the return in response thereto. As per the reasons supplied by the AO the assessment was reopened on the basis of allegation that the assessee has received accommodation entry of Rs.45,00,000/- during the year under consideration. 4. In response thereto, the assessee filed complete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the Assessing Officer. The DR submitted that the re-opening was proper. The DR further submitted that the assessee s case is governed by Hon ble Supreme Court case Navodaya Castle (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2015] 56 Taxman.com 18 (SC). For this submission the detailed order of the Hon ble Delhi High Court ([2014] 367 ITR 306 (Del) was submitted during the course of hearing. The Hon ble High Court held that It was accepted that the assessee was unable to produce the directors and the principal officers of the six shareholder companies and also that as per the information and details collected by the Assessing Officer from the concerned bank, the Assessing Officer had observed that there were genuine concerns about identity, creditworthiness o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supra) will not be applicable as in the present case the assessee has discharged the burden of proof by submitting the documentary evidence at the time of original assessment. Similarly, the AR submitted that the case of Empire Builtech (Supra) will also be not applicable in present case. 10. We have perused all the proceedings and heard both the parties after going through the judgments submitted by the assessee as well as by the Department. As regarding the issue of reopening of the assessment, it is to be noted that AO in the reasons has mentioned a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- from 9 parties. Wherein the amount in the case of Kuberco Sales Pvt. Ltd and M/s Shriniwas Leasing Finance has been mentioned twice. Further, the assessee has not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
