9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1881X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le. Failure of the AO to give a logical conclusion to the enquiry conducted by him gives power to the CIT to revise such assessment order - notices u/s 263 were properly served through affixture or otherwise. Further the law does not require the service of notice u/s 263 strictly as per the terms of section 282 of the Act. The only requirement enshrined in the provision is to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which has been complied with in all such cases Limitation period for passing order is to be counted from the date of passing the order u/s 147 read with sec. 143(3) and not the date of Intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, which is not an order for the purposes of section 263. In all the cases, the orders have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correctness of separate orders passed by the Commissioners of Income-tax (CIT) u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called the Act ) in relation to the captioned assessment years. Since all these appeals are based on largely similar facts and common grounds of appeal, we are proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. Before taking up the disposal of the instant appeals on merits, we consider it expedient to record that these appeals have earlier come up for hearing on several occasions and the assessees have sought adjournments on one pretext or the other. Today, when these appeals were called up for hearing, neither there was any adjournment application nor any body put i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (ITA No.1104/Kol/2014) dated 30.7.2015 for the A.Y. 2009- 10. 5. We find as has also been admitted by the ld. DR that facts and circumstances of the cases under consideration are mutatis mutandis similar to those decided earlier. In our aforesaid order in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT (ITA No. 1104/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2009-10), we have drawn the following conclusions: - A . Contention of the assessee that since the AO of the assesseecompany was not empowered to examine or make any addition on account of receipt of share capital with or without premium before amendment to section 68 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quire the service of notice u/s 263 strictly as per the terms of section 282 of the Act. The only requirement enshrined in the provision is to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which has been complied with in all such cases. D . Limitation period for passing order is to be counted from the date of passing the order u/s 147 read with sec. 143(3) and not the date of Intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, which is not an order for the purposes of section 263. In all the cases, the orders have been passed within the time limit. E . The CIT having jurisdiction over the AO who passed order u/s 147 read with section 143(3), has the territorial jurisdiction to pass the order u/s 263 and not other CIT. F . Addition in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
