9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the department. AO raised very specific and directly relevant queries/called for explanation and evidences w.r.t. source of amount received by the company from three. Assessee had already submitted complete addresses of all the three shareholders as also their Permanent Account Number (PAN) which is the best evidence to prove the identity of a shareholder, in the records of AO itself. Moreover, all the transactions with all the shareholders were admittedly made through banking channels only. Thus, their identity is fully established. The genuineness of the transaction is fully established inasmuch as all the borrowings were made through account payee cheque only and the same was duly verified by the AO from the bank statement of the assessee company filed before him, wherein the fact and the receipt of the subjected amount towards the allotment of share, was clearly visible and was duly verified by the AO. Apart from the bank statement, the AO was also having the ledger accounts of the bank in the account books maintained by the assessee and produced before him as also through the confirmation of all the three shareholders containing complete details i.e. the amount, date, che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16.11.2018 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to the extent of short assessment of ₹ 3,11,400/-, deserves to be completely quashed and set-aside. 7. The appellant prays your honor indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing." 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assesse is a Private Limited Company, derived income from grading, cleaning and storage of agriculture commodity. The assessee had filed its return of income for year under consideration on 14.10.2016 declaring total income of ₹ 2,07,940/- and book profit declared at ₹ 2,15,690/- u/s 115JB(2) of the Act with tax including interest of ₹ 41,100/ u/s 115JB(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny by CASS under Limited Scrutiny for the reason that "Whether the funds received in the form of share premium are from disclosed sources and have been correctly offered to tax." Thereafter, various other necessary notices were issued and after considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted its own bank account nor the bank accounts of the persons who had made investment in shares. Again, the assessee company had also not submitted capital account of the investors. Again, none of the investors produced the bank statements to establish the source of funds for making such a huge investment in the shares, even though they were declaring a meager income in the returns. Thus, the assessee company failed to discharge the onus by filing cogent evidence for creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of transactions. The share application money received by the assessee company during the year has not been subject to examination on the triple tests of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. In other words, the AO has not examined the identity, creditworthiness of the shareholders / investors and also the genuineness of transactions in respect of total amount of shares of ₹ 1,08,00,000/- and because of the same, the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act in the case of assessee company for A.Y. 2016-17 is found to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue." The Ld. Pr.CIT, thereafter, referred to the first proviso to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the year and the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) andany other relevant section as discussed in preceding paras, despite being the fact that this was the sole reason for scrutiny selection. Hence, assessment order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act for the A.Y. 2016-17 dated 16.11.2018 has thus been rendered erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue on the issue of non-verification Large share premium received by the assessee company during the year and the applicability of 56(2)(viib) and any other relevant section of the Income Tax Act. The same is therefore set-aside / cancelled and restored back to the file of AO on this issue, in view of the detailed discussion made in preceding paras, with the direction to pass fresh assessment order after conducting proper verification and enquiries on the above issue and based on outcome of such enquiries, necessary addition wherever required may be made to the total income and to the book profit u/s 115JB(1) of the I.T. Act of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act and Income Tax Rules. However, an opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee before passing the order." 4. Now the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s fully apply on the facts of the present case in principle. 2. Due application of mind: 2.1 It is submitted that the AO had raised very specific and directly relevant queries/called for explanation and evidences w.r.t. the identities and creditworthiness genuineness of the receipts towards the share premium of ₹ 1.08 Cr and applicability of of S.56(2)(viib); to the extent he was supposed to act in law. 2.2 This is also evident from queries raised and the replies given thereto, reproduced hereunder: 2.2.1 Through the Notice/s u/s 143(2) dated 12.08.2017 (PB 4-8), thereto called for explanation as under: "Following issue(s) have been identified for examination: i. Whether the funds received in the form of share premium are from disclosed sources and have been correctly offered for tax. In view of the above, I would like to give you an opportunity to produce any evidence/information which you feel is necessary in support of the said return of income on or before 29/08/2017 at 11:30 AM." Reply to the above notice was submitted on 29.08.2017 (PB 8) as under: "With reference to the above subject it is submitted that the shares have been issued in the form of shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome-Tax Act, 1961 read with rule 11UA(2) of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962 are not applicable on receipts of Share Premium. 4. On perusal of your submissions and documents, it is noticed that FMV of unquoted shares which allotted during the year under consideration is come at ₹ 57.67 against calculating by you of ₹ 60 in terms of procedure provided under rule 11UA(2) of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962 i.e., A-L/PE*PV = (7231418-733000)- (64254+1111000+491891)/935000*10. Thus, there is a difference comes of ₹ 14,99,400 is why not to be added to your total taxable income in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961." The same was duly replied vide letter dated 'Nil' and dated 12.11.2018 (PB 14-19), on all the queries raised. The assesee provided complete name and PAN No of all the three shareholders. To prove their genuineness, the assesee also submitted copies of ITR acknowledgements (PB 29-40) and the confirmations duly signed by them (PB 43-45), to whom the shares were allotted. The assesee also submitted justification behind the premium @ ₹ 50/- per share charged as under: "1 That we have allotted the shares on premium as per following calculat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt record of this year as well as the preceding year along with the enclosures filed with or within the ROI by the concerned shareholder. Thus, unless there was something negative available on record or so alleged by the Ld. CIT, his attempt to find fault in the actions of the AO, is not legally justified. 3. Source of receipt of share premium amount: 3.1 AO acted as per Judicial Guidelines: This all the more holds good when binding decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in various cases (infra) have propounded the principle in the context of S.68 being only the examination of the identity of the shareholder concerned his/her the confirmation of the fact of providing/ transferring subjected amount to the assesse but the AO is not legally bound to examine source of source, once the immediate source is available. In the present case, the AO was having complete details of the identity in the shape of PAN number & address (PB 29-40). He was also having conformation (PB 43-45) duly signed by the shareholder. As stated, he was able and he looked into the file of the shareholders in the portal of the department. Thus, in view of the binding judicial guideline, the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enied that the assesse had already submitted complete addresses of all the three shareholders as also their Permanent Account Number (PAN) which is the best evidence to prove the identity of a shareholder, in the records of AO itself. Moreover, all the transactions with all the shareholders were admittedly made through banking channels only. Thus, their identity is fully established. 4.2.2 Genuine Transactions: The genuineness of the transaction is fully established in as much as all the borrowings were made through account payee cheque only and the same was duly verified by the AO from the bank statement (PB 24-28) of the assesse company filed before him, wherein the fact and the receipt of the subjected amount towards the allotment of share, was clearly visible and was duly verified by the AO. Apart from the bank statement, the AO was also having the ledger accounts of the bank in the account books maintained by the assesse and produced before him as also through the confirmation of all the three shareholders (PB 43-45) containing complete details i.e. the amount, date, cheque number etc. It is not the case of the revenue that the borrowing was made in cash so as to justify any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplanation were also made during the personal hearing. The Ld CIT, in fact, did not apply his mind on this aspect and ignored that the AO was empowered legally and technically to have examined the veracity of the claim made by the assesse with regard to the creditworthiness of the shareholders. 4.2.4 The following facts and details which were available on the portal of the Income Tax Department and emanated from the hearing, were known to the AO, are quite relevant and being submitted hereunder: Chelna Devi: She is an old and regular income tax assesse. This fact can be verified from the PAN Card data. The Return of Income for this year was filed on gross total income of ₹ 12,23,031/- and total income of ₹ 10,72,700/- for A.Y. 2016-17. She is proprietor of M/s Munmun Industries. The Balance Sheet of the proprietary was uploaded in the ROI filed by her. The source of fund transfers to the assesse company was from her proprietary M/s Munmun Industries which is a Tax Audit case with a turnover of ₹ 3523.81 Lakhs. The closing balance of her capital a/c in the proprietary stood at ₹ 97.08 lakhs and her total capital stood at ₹ 148.18 lakhs. Her financial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8lakhs to ₹ 7.76 lakhs. INCOME DETAILS OF SH. DHARM CHAND JAIN (PAN: ABRPJ4861E) HEAD ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 2015-16 2014-15 2013-14 2012-13 Gross Total Income 6,79,099 6,43,430 5,48,703 6,04,222 4,22,501 Profit from Firm (Exempt Income) 96,956 29,204 60,959 71,242 65,550 Total 7,76,055 6,72,634 6,09,662 6,75,464 4,88,051 Therefore, the allegation and the expectation of the Ld. CIT from the AO acting as quasi-judicial authority, examine the receipts in context with the S. 68 and requiring he assesse to prove the credit to the hilt, is clearly beyond the scope of S. 263, in as much as he was supposed, only to the extent of examination of the fact that the amount so received towards the share premium was not from undisclosed sources (if one strictly go by the reason of selection for limited scrutiny) or to examine the conditions as per RHC decisions. Thus, when AO has acted according to the judicial guideline and the principles propounded by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court the AO could not venture to follow the binding decisions. If the ld. CIT had any doubt, he should have directed inquiry in their hands as held in Lovely Exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, premium etc. shall be deemed not satisfactory unless the shareholder does not offer explanation on the nature and the source of the sum credited and such explanation in the opinion of the AO is not found satisfactory. In the peculiar facts of this case, the AO was not supposed to deem the explanation offered by the assesse as unsatisfactory because the assesse had explained the nature and the source to the satisfaction of the AO and there was no evidence, information or anything else indicating that more enquiry was warranted. Hence, the principle propounded by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Harshila Chordiya (Supra) still holds goods in as much as the Proviso broadly states what S. 68 states. In fact, first proviso was inserted to annul the argument that receipts towards share allotment, premium etc. are as of capital nature to avoid the application of S. 68 w.r.t such receipts. Therefore, the ratio laid as above held good in present case also and this law of land having been available on the date of the passing of the Assessment Order dated 16.11.2018, could not have been ignored by the AO. 6.1 It is not the case of CIT that there was a complete/total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while recording the said finding, the AO has taken one of the plausible views in allowing the claim of the assessee-Therefore, CIT could not have set aside the order of assessment merely on the ground of inadequacy of enquiry-Order passed by the CIT was not sustainable in law hence, the Tribunal rightly set aside the impugned order of the CIT. The ld. CIT is completely silent on this aspect. 7.1 Beyond the scope of enquiry contemplated u/s 263: The scope of enquiry in the present case was limited to the extent of the issues made a basis for selection of the case. The admitted fact was that the case was selected for limited scrutiny so as to examine whether the funds received in the form of share premium are from disclosed sources and have been correctly offered to tax (and not large share premium received during the year verify applicability of sec 56(2)(viib) or any other relevant section) as per notice issued u/s 143(2) dated 12.08.2017 (PB 4-7). It is also a fact available on record that limited scrutiny was not converted to full scrutiny nor the higher authorities did so. Thus, the scope of examination by the AO in this limited scrutiny was confined: a) Only to the exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the case for the limited scrutiny and the CIT cannot invoke S. 263 on the issues which were not made basis for selection of the case. 7.2.1 Kindly refer Mahendra Singh Dhankar (HUF) vs. ACIT, (2021) 35 NYPTTJ 458 (Jp) (DPB 34-43) 7.2.2 In CIT v/s Smt. Padmavathi (2020) 4 NYPCTR 682 (Mad) 7.3.3 In Su-Raj Diamond Dealers (P) Ltd. v/s PCIT (2020) 203 TTJ (Mumbai) 137 (DPB 44-50) 7.3.4 In Nayek Paper Converters vs. ACIT (2005) 93 TTJ (Cal) 8.1 Applicability of S.56(2) (viib): The Ld. CIT also alleged that the AO did not make enquiries and verification on the issue of large share premium received by the assesse and the applicability of S.56(2)(viib) and other relevant sections even though this was not the reason for scrutiny selection. 8.2 Alternatively and without prejudice to above, even otherwise on merits, there has been due and proper application of mind in as much as the Ld. AO raised directly relevant queries (as stated above) which were duly replied by the assesse as well. The assesse also submitted the computation as to how the assesse derived the amount of the premium which was also admitted by the Ld. CIT in para 3 pg 4 of the Impugned Order. In addition, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b.) 11.5 Rajmal Kanwar v. CIT-I [2017] 82 taxmann.com 119 (Jaipur - Trib.) 11.6 Abdul Hamid v. Income-tax Officer [2020] 117 taxmann.com 986 (Gauhati - Trib.) 11.7 CIT v/s Vikas Polymers 341 (2012) ITR 0537 (Del) In view of the above submissions and the Judicial Guideline, the impugned order passed u/s 263 deserves to be quashed. The above submissions are based on the facts & information made available and as per instructions of the appellant." 6. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has relied on the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT. 7. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed by the authorities below as well as cited before us and we have also gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities. As per facts of the present case, we noticed that the assesse, a Private Limited Company, derived income from grading, cleaning and storage of agriculture commodity. It had filed its return of income for the year under appeal on 14.10.2016 declaring income of ₹ 2,07,940/- and book profit declared of ₹ 2,15,690/- u/s 115JB(2) of the Act wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when the AO adopts one of two courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law." 8. It is submitted by the ld. AR that the AO had raised very specific and directly relevant queries/called for explanation and evidences w.r.t. the identities and creditworthiness genuineness of the receipts towards the share premium of ₹ 1.08 Cr and applicability of S.56(2)(viib); to the extent he was supposed to act in law. The relevant para of the assessment order, wherein the AO has examined each any every documents submitted by assessee during scrutiny proceedings, is reproduced below: "The assessee company has filed its e-ITR on 14.10.2016 declaring a total income at ₹ 2,07,940 and book profit declare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pto the date of issue of shares was ₹ 62,940/-, hence total net worth of the Company deemed is ₹ 56,10,000/-.Total 93,500 shares have been issued. Book value of the share was ₹ 60/- and the Company has issued Rights Issue as per book value of the Company. 10 rupees face value shares has been issued at the premium of ₹ 50/- i.e. @ ₹ 60/- per share, hence as per book value the Rights Issue has been allotted. We want a personal hearing the case and do not want E-proceeding facility through our account in e-filing website of the Income Tax Department. We opted out e-assessment proceedings." 10. Thereafter, in notice u/s 142(1) dated 25.06.2018, which are at page No. 9-11of the paper book, the AO raised more queries on the issue in hand as under: "3. To furnish copy of Directors' and Auditors' Report with financial statements as on 31.03.2014, 31.03.2015 & 31.03.2016. 4. To furnish complete detail of bank accounts & Post Office Accounts and other Financial Institution Accounts managed/operated in the table given below - 5. To explain with supporting documents that whether the funds received in the form of Share Premium are from disclosed sources an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing calculation: Net Assets Value as on 31.03.2015 : 72,31,418.00 Less: Liabilities : 4,91,891.00 : 11,73,787.00 16,65,678.00 5565740/ 93500 = 59.53 as on 31.03.2015 and as per fair market Value which is ₹ 60/- per share. x x x x As per calculation we have taken the premium as per value of the shares i.e. face value is ₹ 10 per share and premium of ₹ 50/- per share hence total value is ₹ 60/- per share and there is no tax liability on share premium as they are from disclosed sources." The assesse also submitted the copy of bank statements of the assesse company which are at page No. 24-28 of the paper book. 11. We observed that the ld. AR produced books of account including cash book, ledger, subsidiary records and filed various other details as required, which were duly examined. The AO made all the inquiries, sought clarifications on all the relevant aspects to the extent he was supposed looking to the nature of the issue involved the past accepted history of the case and the evidences and material already available therein together with the material provided during the assessment proceedings. In the present case, the AO was having co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Number (PAN) which is the best evidence to prove the identity of a shareholder, in the records of AO itself. Moreover, all the transactions with all the shareholders were admittedly made through banking channels only. Thus, their identity is fully established. The genuineness of the transaction is fully established inasmuch as all the borrowings were made through account payee cheque only and the same was duly verified by the AO from the bank statement of the assesse company filed before him, wherein the fact and the receipt of the subjected amount towards the allotment of share, was clearly visible and was duly verified by the AO. Apart from the bank statement, the AO was also having the ledger accounts of the bank in the account books maintained by the assesse and produced before him as also through the confirmation of all the three shareholders containing complete details i.e. the amount, date, cheque number etc. It is not the case of the revenue that the borrowing was made in cash so as to justify any suspicion. There was no cash deposit made in their bank A/C just prior to issue of cheque to the assessee company. For the completeness, the details of the amount received from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... technically to have examined the veracity of the claim made by the assesse with regard to the creditworthiness of the shareholders. Therefore, the allegation and the expectation of the Ld. Pr.CIT from the AO acting as quasi-judicial authority, examine the receipts in context with the S. 68 and requiring the assesse to prove the credit to the hilt, is clearly beyond the scope of S. 263, inasmuch as he was supposed, only to the extent of examination of the fact that the amount so received towards the share premium was not from undisclosed sources (if one strictly go by the reason of selection for limited scrutiny) or to examine the conditions as per the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decisions. 14. Further the undisputed facts are that all the three shareholders were allotted equity shares as per the details given at pg 2 of the impugned order in consideration of ₹ 60 per share. Necessary formality of filing return of allotment and making entries in the record were completed as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. Thus, the subjected receipts of ₹ 1.08 Cr from the three shareholders was in consideration of the 1.80 lakhs equity shares. Such credits were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re allotment, premium etc. are as of capital nature to avoid the application of S. 68 w.r.t such receipts. Therefore, the ratio laid as above held good in present case also and this law of land having been available on the date of the passing of the Assessment Order dated 16.11.2018, could not have been ignored by the AO. 15. We observed that it was not the case of CIT that there was a complete/total lack of inquiry. He himself admits in the impugned order that the AO did make enquiry on both the issues. The law is well settled that the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous simply on the allegation of inadequate enquiry. Unless there is an established case of total lack of enquiry. In this regard, we draw strength from the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del)), wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court was considering the aspect, when there is no proper or full verification, and it was held that: "One has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year verify applicability of sec 56(2)(viib) or any other relevant section) as per notice issued u/s 143(2) dated 12.08.2017. It is also a fact available on record that limited scrutiny was not converted to full scrutiny nor the higher authorities did so. Thus, the scope of examination by the AO in this limited scrutiny was confined: a) Only to the examination of the fact as to whether the funds received in the form of share premium were from disclosed sources or not. Evidently, there was no pointed reference made to S.68 therefore, the technical requirement of S. 68 being establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction could not have been presumed by the Ld. Pr. CIT and consequently, he could not have expected the AO to get the same proved by the assesse to the hilt. In other words, this could not be a good basis for holding the subjected assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It cannot be denied that the very reason of selection was certainly enquired into by the AO in as much as the funds of ₹ 1.08 Cr in the form of share premium were found received from disclosed sources as they were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut following said procedure and necessary approval of the competent authority, conducting an enquiry on the issue which is outside the limited scrutiny would be beyond the jurisdiction of the AO- Therefore, where the matter is selected for limited scrutiny, revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised for broadening the scope of jurisdiction that was originally vested with the AO while framing the assessment-For the purposes of converting limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny, what is relevant is that there must be some credible material or information on face of the record indicating that there is possibility of underassessment of income if the case is not examined under 'complete scrutiny'-In the instant case, there was no tangible material or information available during the course of assessment proceedings basis which reasonable belief can be formed of escapement or underassessment of income which could have led the AO to seek permission to convert limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny-Issue of valuation of closing work-in-progress as well as matter relating to agriculture income, which are held by the Principal CIT as matters not examined by the AO, are matters which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmity could be attributed to the assessment framed by the AO on the ground that he has failed to deal with other issues which did not fall within the realm of the limited reasons for which the case was selected for scrutiny assessment-Thus, the order passed by the AO under s. 143(3) cannot be said to be erroneous-Therefore, order passed by the Principal CIT under s. 263 is quashed." In the case of Nayek Paper Converters vs. ACIT (2005) 93 TTJ (Cal) 574, it was held that: "Revision-Erroneous order and/or order prejudicial to Revenue-Limited scrutiny assessment by AO under s. 143(2)(1)-Exercise of revisional jurisdiction by CIT directing AO to make comprehensive scrutiny assessment under s. 143(2)(ii)-Invalid-It is the exclusive discretion of the AO to proceed under s. 143(2)(i) or 143(2)(ii) in a given case-AO having chosen to make assessment under s. 143(2)(i) after obtaining approval of Addl. CIT and making proper enquiries, order of AO could not be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue-Further, time limit for issue of notice under s. 143(2)(ii) had also expired-Still further, only miniscule cases were to be taken up for comprehensive scrutiny under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l to the interests of the Revenue‟ . It is not an arbitrary or unchartered power, it can be exercised only on fulfillment of the requirements laid down in sub-section (1). The consideration of the Commissioner as to whether an order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, must be based on materials on the record of the proceedings called for by him. If there are no materials on record on the basis of which it can be said that the Commissioner acting in a reasonable manner could have come to such a conclusion, the very initiation of proceedings by him will be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. Such action will be against the well-accepted policy of law that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. In the case of Elder IT Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [2015] 59 taxm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
