Court validates ITAT appeals delay, upholds Section 263 notice, and affirms amended Section 68 retroactivity.

The court condoned the delay in filing appeals for ITAT 178 of 2016 and ITAT 14 of 2017. The show-cause notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was deemed valid, despite the appellant's contention. The Commissioner's directive for further inquiry into shareholders' identity and creditworthiness was upheld. The amended Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was held to have retrospective applicability. The court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Commissioner's directive and the retrospective applicability of the amended Section 68.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Validity of the show-cause notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Inquiry into the identity and creditworthiness of shareholders.
4. Retrospective applicability of the amended Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
5. Legitimacy of the Commissioner’s directive for further inquiry.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The court condoned the delay in filing the appeals for ITAT 178 of 2016 and ITAT 14 of 2017, being satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from filing within the prescribed time.

2. Validity of the Show-Cause Notice under Section 263:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (C.I.T.) issued a show-cause notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, stating that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to insufficient inquiry into the substantial premium paid on shares of a little-known company. The appellant contended that no show-cause notice was issued, but this point was not pressed during the hearing.

3. Inquiry into the Identity and Creditworthiness of Shareholders:
The C.I.T. found that the assessing officer did not conduct requisite inquiries regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders. The Commissioner directed a thorough inquiry, including summoning the directors of the assessee and subscriber companies, and examining the source of funds and the layers through which the share capital was rotated.

4. Retrospective Applicability of the Amended Section 68:
The Tribunal, relying on its decision in Subhalakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.I.T., held that the amended Section 68, which requires the assessee to prove the receipt of share capital with premium to the satisfaction of the assessing officer, was retrospective in operation. The appellant argued against this, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., which held that amendments should not be given retrospective effect unless explicitly stated.

5. Legitimacy of the Commissioner’s Directive for Further Inquiry:
The court upheld the Commissioner’s directive for further inquiry, finding it to be a step towards potentially charging the share capital receipts as income if the assessing officer remained unsatisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee. The Tribunal’s dismissal of the appeal was based on the precedent set by the Subhalakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. case, which supported the Commissioner’s directive for detailed inquiries.

Conclusion:
The court found no substantial question of law in the appeals and dismissed them, affirming the Commissioner’s directive for further inquiry and the retrospective applicability of the amended Section 68 as per the Tribunal’s earlier decision. The court also noted that the special leave petition against a similar judgment in Rajmandir Estates Private Limited was dismissed by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the validity of the Commissioner’s actions.

---