9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) dated 31.03.2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT was justified in enhancing the assessment by directing the Ld. AO to make an addition towards share capital and share premium in the sum of Rs. 25,83,10,000/- under Section 68 of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading and investment in equity shares and had electronically filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 27.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 10,050/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2014 determining total income of Rs. 1,26,250/-. This assessment was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enhance the assessment accordingly. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds: 1.(a) For that the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. (b) For that the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax dated 31.3.2016 passed under section 263 is barred by limitation. (c) For that the order dated 31.03.2016 passed under section 263 is liable to quash in the absence of any finding by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax that the assessment is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in passing the order u/s 263 without giving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions. We find that the Ld. CIT had passed an order ex parte due to non-appearance on the part of the assessee before him. The Ld. AR before us filed an Affidavit duly notarized stating the reason for nonappearance before the Ld. CIT and prayed for setting aside the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT. We find that the Ld. CIT initially sought to invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the Ld. AO had not made enquiries with regard to creditworthiness of the share subscribers to pay share capital and share premium to the assessee company. From the perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT, we find that the Ld. CIT also had not conducted any enquiry to conclude that the share capital and share premium received by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
