9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 23 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Addition u/s 68 - persons failed to prove their identity, genuinity and credit worthiness - provisions of Section 68 as amended given retrospective operation - HELD THAT - We find that the questions raised before us is squarely covered by the decision of M/s. Pragati Financial Management Pvt. Ltd 2017 (3) TMI 1242 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Thus, following the above decision of the Hon ble Division Bench, this appeal is dismissed and we hold there is no substantial questions of law arising for consideration.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding assessment of share applicants. 2. Justification of invoking Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income Tax. 3. Reliance on precedent in M/s. Subhalakshmi Vanijya Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 263 The appellant challenged the order passed under Section 263 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, questioning the treatment of share applicants. The Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner's order under Section 263 for five out of six share applicants, despite dropping proceedings after an inquiry. The appellant contended that all details were provided for the sixth share holder without adverse comments. The Court found the issue covered by the decision in M/s. Pragati Financial Management Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, where no substantial questions of law were identified. Issue 2: Justification of invoking Section 263 The appellant raised concerns about the Commissioner invoking Section 263 despite examining the assessment records of investors and dropping proceedings. The Court referred to a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing the retrospective operation of Section 68 of the Act. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing the need for inquiries into capital receipts, even if received as share capital, to ascertain the source and genuineness. Issue 3: Reliance on Precedent The appellant contested the Tribunal's reliance on the lead order in M/s. Subhalakshmi Vanijya Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, arguing that the factual findings were not applicable to their case. The Court, however, dismissed the appeal based on the decision in M/s. Pragati Financial Management Pvt. Ltd., stating that no substantial questions of law were raised. The Court emphasized the need for inquiries into capital receipts, particularly in cases involving fresh share capital issued at high premiums. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial questions of law and upholding the decision of the Tribunal. The judgment highlighted the importance of inquiries into capital receipts to determine the source and genuineness, even in cases of share capital infusion. The Court's decision aligned with previous rulings on the retrospective operation of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the need for thorough investigations to ensure compliance with tax regulations.
|
