9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 304 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the very same issue of limitation has been decided in favour of the assessee under similar facts. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1077/M/2020 - - - Dated:- 1-9-2021 - SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Rajnish K. Vohra, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Rajeek Sahu, D.R. ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 03.02.2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2010-11. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company and is engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities. A return of income was filed for the instant year on 19.09.2010 declaring an income at ₹ 7,956/-. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 11/03/2013 after calling for details in respect of issue of share capital and share premium by the AO. Subsequently, the case was re-opened by the AO by issuing notice u/s 148 of the I T Act on 31.03.2017, which was apparently beyond four years to verify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of re-assessment proceedings which were also furnished in the course of original assessment proceedings and were extensively examined by the then AO. 4. The ld. Pr.CIT further did not appreciate that the re-assessment order pursuant to notice u/s 148 of the Act based on reasons recorded is bad in law and there was no occasion earlier for the appellant to challenge the same as the reassessment order ultimately was not adverse to the appellant. 5. In any event, the ld. Pr. CIT did not appreciate that issue of genuineness of credits aggregating to ₹ 1 cr. referred to in the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act, which was the ground for re-opening of the assessment, was duly examined by the AO in the re-assessment proceedings and with regard to issue of share capital at a premium, the same was not the ground on which the assessment was reopened and, therefore, the revisionary power with regard to issue of share capital was hopelessly time barred as the period of limitation provided for under sub-section (2) of section 263 of the Act would begin to run from the date of original assessment order and not from the order of re-assessment as held by the Apex Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpanies. The ld AR submitted that the assessee allotted shares to four companies at premium and in response to specific query raised vide notice dated 15.10.2012, assessee vide letter dated 13.12.2012 furnished complete details of shares issued at premium. The ld AR further submitted that the assessee vide letter dated 20.12.2012 submitted copies of all the bank statements with ledger accounts. The AO thereafter also issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act, which were also complied with by the allottee companies. Subsequently, AO had issued a show cause notice and assessee vide letter dated 25.02.2013 made further submissions and objected to proposed additions. Having considered and taken into account the submissions and contentions of the assessee, the AO framed the assessment order under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act on 11.03.2013 by assessing income at Rs. Nil. The ld AR submitted that subsequently, the assessment was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 31/03/2017 after recording reasons to believe, copy of which is enclosed on page 108 of paper book. The ld AR stated that as per these reasons, the assessment was reopened on the basis of inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... namely Bhawani Enterprises and Asher Ventures Pvt. Ltd. which were controlled by Praveen Agarwal a well known entry provider. The ld PCIT exercised revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act after receiving a proposal from the AO that inquiries qua identity, creditworthiness of the parties from whom share premium was received could not be conducted due to shortage of time. The Ld. PCIT finally passed the order under section 263 of the Act setting aside the reassessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on the ground that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the issue of share capital and share premium were not verified by the AO. The revisionary order u/s 263 of the Act was passed on 03.02.2020. Now the issue before us whether the revisionary order is barred by limitation u/s 263(2) of the Act. We are quite convinced with the submissions of the assessee that period of limitation has to be taken from the original assessment order dated 11.03.2013 and not from re-assessment order dated 29.12.2017. It is also true that the issue which was subject matter of revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act was not at all subject matter of re-assessment proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
