Assessee-company was engaged in the business of real estate development. Return was accepted, and an assessment order was passed under section 143(3) without making any addition/disallowance to returned income. Subsequently, information was received from DIT (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) that an entity, ‘Gold Singapore ‘ a Singapore-based company, had made large investments in assessee-company. On basis of same, Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice against assessee on ground that the assessee had received share application money of certain amount from ‘Gold Singapore    which was to be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68. Reassessment proceedings had been initiated primarily for reason that ‘Gold Singapore    did not appear to be carrying out any business activities in Singapore and had been floated to act as a conduit for further investments in Indian companies. High Court held that the identity and creditworthiness of  ‘Gold Singapore   and genuineness of transaction had been accepted by department without any addition while framing assessments for assessment years 2012-13, 2015-16 and 2020-2021. Transaction of investment of share capital in assessee had been duly examined in subsequent assessment years and accepted in completed assessments/reassessments under section 143(3). High Court held that since nature and source of receipts had been satisfactorily explained/proved and Assessing Officer had not contradicted explanation/information given by assessee, there was no cause for initiating reassessment action for the relevant assessment year; therefore, the reopening notice issued against the assessee and reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant thereto were quashed. Court held that there was a delay of 198 days in filing the SLP, which had not been satisfactorily explained, and even otherwise, the Court did not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the High Court and, thus, the SLP was dismissed.  (AY. 2008-09)