9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable in law. Also in the case of Max India Ltd. [ 2007 (11) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] as held that when the AO has adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. In the case of Gabriel India Ltd. [ 1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as held that, the ld. Pr. CIT cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are alre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/2010 declaring total income of Rs.12,11,824/-. The return of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 23/05/2011. Thereafter the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee is a beneficiary of Rs.10,00,000/- received from M/s. Hemlata Creation Pvt. Ltd., on 16/01/2010. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and duly served on the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the issue by calling for details/evidences from the assessee as well as from M/S Hemlata Creations Pvt Ltd. and other share subscribers. namely, Canny Properties Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Elize International Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Gurukul Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Irabati tie-up Pvt. Ltd. by iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... showcause as to why the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act should not be revised on the ground of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Finally, the ld. Pr. CIT revised the assessment only with respect to share capital received of Rs.10,00,000/- from M/s. Hemlata Creation Pvt. Ltd., for non-verification while the second item of loan of Rs.5,30,88,766/- and repayment thereof by the assessee was duly accepted. 4. The ld. A/R argued before us that the ld. Pr. CIT has grossly erred in not appreciating the facts on record, as the ld. Pr. CIT has failed to appreciate that reply dt. 17/07/2007 (copy of which is filed at page no. 26 to 27) and annexures (from pages 28 to 35) comprising of allotment advice, bank sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the revisionary order only one issue was raised with respect to Rs. 10,00,000/- was received from M/s. Hemlata Creation Pvt. Ltd. which according to the ld Pr CIT remained unverified as the said party has failed to respond to the notice received u/s 133(6) of the Act. We have examined the assessment order and find that the Assessing Officer accepted the transaction after due verification and, therefore, the allegation of the ld. Pr. CIT that the verification in respect of share subscription of Rs.10,00,000/- remained unverified, is devoid of merit. 7. The case of the assessee finds strength from various decision relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. 7.1. The Hon ble Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
