Prashant Maharishi ORDER
Suchitra Kamble, Member (J)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 24/09/2018 passed by CIT(A)-35, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2014-15.
2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
"1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee and failing to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee, challenging the extraneous and extra-jurisdictional findings/observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the following observations/findings in the assessment order were in total disregard of appellant's factual and legal submissions, were erroneous, extraneous, unsubstantiated, false, baseless and founded on conjectures and surmises, and therefore ought to have been set aside by the Ld.CIT(A).
2.1. That the assessing officer erred in holding that shares of listed companies received by the appellant company as gift without consideration, as part of internal family realignment amongst members of the family, could not be regarded as valid "gift", and further grossly erred in alleging the same to be sham and colorable transactions, without any cogent reasons. That the assessing officer ought to have appreciated that the gift was given in compliance with necessary statutory provisions, after obtaining necessary authorizations and after following the due process under the law.
2.2 That the assessing officer, despite making no addition in the hands of the Appellant, exceeded his jurisdiction in alleging that benefit arose to the Appellant through receipt of shares from various companies and holding the same to be taxable under section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") in the hands of Mrs. Arti Jindal alleged to be the beneficiary, by lifting the corporate veil, without providing any cogent reasons, and without appreciating that the alleged beneficiary never obtained any benefit from this transaction at any time.
2.3. That the assessing officer erred in holding that the transaction of gift of shares held by Mrs. Arti Jindal in the Appellant company to M/s. PRJ Holding Private Trust was not valid and was a sham and void transaction which was undertaken to avoid tax.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the findings in the assessment order pertaining to taxation of alleged benefit in the hands of the alleged beneficiary under section 2(24)(iv) of the Act, besides being beyond jurisdiction, are capricious and violative of principles of natural justice and fair play.
3. The assessee is an investment company. Return of income was electronically filed on 29/09/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 2,75,836/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company has claimed to receive shares of various companies from various companies as gift without paying any consideration. The details of which are as under:-
The Assessing Officer further observed that the financials filed by the assessee company clearly shows that Smt. Arti Jindal was holding 99.9% shares of the assessee company. However, during the Financial Year 2013-14 relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15, 99.6% of shares holding of M/s. Glebe Trading was transferred to M/s. PRJ Holdings Private Trust as gift. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,59,31,93,479/- in the hands of the beneficiary within the provisions of Section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There is no addition made in the hands of the assessee company.
4. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) raising therein the following grounds:-