2015 (11) TMI 1736 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - CIT directing the AO to make proper enquiries in respect of the receipt of share capital - no enquiry was conducted - Held that - It is relevant to mention that we have disposed of more than 500 cases involving same issue through certain orders with the main order having been passed in a group of cases led by Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 2015 (8) TMI 174 - ITAT KOLKATA to hold that the contention of the ld. AR that since the AO of the assessee-company is not empowered to examine or make any addition on account of receipt of share capital with or without premium before amendment by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. A.Y. 2013- 14 and hence the CIT by means of impugned order u/s 263 could not have directed the AO to do so, is unsustainable. In the present case is a glaring example of not making relevant enquiry, which amounts to no enquiry and hence it becomes a case of non-application of mind by the AO. The very fact that no enquiry was conducted or no proper enquiry was conducted in the required circumstances, is sufficient in itself to invoke the provisions of section 263. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeals challenging orders passed by CIT u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act. Adjournment requests by Assessees. Similarity in facts and grounds of appeal. Assessment proceedings, enquiries about shares issued at premium. Applicability of previous orders. Power of CIT to revise assessment order. Proper service of notices u/s 263. Limitation period for passing order. Territorial jurisdiction of CIT. Addition u/s 68 in first year of incorporation. Validity of order post-amalgamation. Validity of order passed on non-working day. Validity of order without signed notice. Refusal to accept written submissions. Revision of order post search proceedings.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata involve challenges against orders passed by the Commissioners of Income-tax (CIT) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessees sought adjournments on various occasions, leading to the current consolidated order due to the similarity in facts and grounds of appeal. The cases revolve around assessment proceedings where companies with low income had received share capital at a premium, triggering enquiries by Assessing Officers (AOs) and subsequent orders by CITs under section 263. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been addressed in previous orders, particularly the case of Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, establishing key conclusions. These include the power of CIT to revise assessment orders due to inadequate enquiry by AO, the validity of notices u/s 263, and the limitation period for passing such orders.

The Tribunal emphasized that the jurisdictional CIT has the authority to pass orders under section 263, and the service of notices need not strictly adhere to section 282 requirements but should provide an opportunity for the Assessee to be heard. Additionally, it clarified that the limitation period for passing orders is counted from the date of the order u/s 147 read with section 143(3). The Tribunal upheld the applicability of various conclusions from previous cases, including the validity of orders post-amalgamation and the non-working day issue. It also addressed matters such as the signing of notices, acceptance of written submissions, and the impact of search proceedings on order revisions. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals based on the precedents and findings in line with the Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. case, pronouncing the order on 03.11.2015.