9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Limited are also discussed hereinabove by which the impugned transactions have been accepted in the respective cases. Therefore, the same transactions cannot be treated as bogus and colourable in the hands of the assessee. Even on the merits of the case, the additions do not stand and, therefore, we direct the AO to delete the impugned additions. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vealed that those subscribers that the assessee, M/s Savroli Finvest Limited has received a sum of Rs. 55, 00, 000/ - were group companies of M/s Bhushan Steel and family members of Shri Brij Bhushan Singhal. It was also observed that the subscriber companies had no creditworthiness. When the bank account statement of M/s Jawahar Credit and Holdings Private Limited was analyzed it was found that the money taken from the share subscribers were immediately transferred to and invested in various other companies. Apart from the high value share based capital account transactions, there were hardly any revenue account transactions. The assessee company, M/s Savroli Finvest Limited, was one of the companies where M/s Jawahar Credit and Holding Private Limited has made investment. The companies which have invested in M/s Jawahar Credit and Holding Private Limited and the companies in which it has invested were found to be registered at the same address and their directors were also common directors. On the basis of examination of return of income for assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013- 14, that those companies did not have their own profits and had not been engaged." in any real ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Buildon Private Limited framed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26/03/2015 for the very same assessment year by which the returned income of Rs. 7, 18, 936/- was assessed at Rs.98, 56, 58, 936/- after making addition of Rs.98, 49, 40, 000/- u/s 68 of the Act. The quarrel travelled up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal interalia in ACIT v. Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in I.T.A. No.5831/DEL/2016; Assessment Year 2012-13, order dated 18/03/2021, deleted the impugned addition. 10. The assessment order dated 23/03/2015 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act of M/s. Tremendous Mining & Minerals Pvt. Ltd., for AY 2012-13 is placed at pages 147 of the paper book, by which the returned income of the assessee was accepted as such. Moreover, these are group companies of the assesee. 11. Thus, the assessee has furnished clinching evidences before the AO during the course of the original assessment proceedings to prove the transactions. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration. 12. Since the reopening is of more than four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material facts. The jurisdictional requirement for carrying out the reassessment, after the expiry of period of four years, is not fulfilled in the present case. 11. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that, in fact, there was no failure to disclose all material facts as the Respondent No.1 had specifically sought details as regard the relevant expenditure and which were furnished. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1, to contend that the duty of the assessee was to place on record all the primary facts and drawing of inference from the primary facts is upto the Assessing Officer. However, this issue need not be gone into in depth any further, as the Petitioner is entitled to succeed on the first ground mentioned above. 12. In the circumstances, the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the Petition. It will have to be held that the Respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to proceed with the impugned reassessment proceedings." 14. Similarly, in the case of Sound Casting (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2012] 250 CTR 119 (Bombay), the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held as under:- "Held that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
