TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 741
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed by the AO on 26.03.2014. The assessee had during the previous year allotted 32,00,000 lakhs number of equity shares of Re.1/- per share. Again during the previous year the assessee company had allotted 2,91,750 number of equity shares of Re.1/- per share at a premium of Rs. 999/- per share. Thus the assessee received a sum of Rs. 2,91,750/- towards share capital and Rs. 29,14,58,250/- towards share premium. 3. The AO while framing the assessment u/s 143 (3) of the Act accepted the receipt of share capital by the assessee after making the following observations :- "It is seen from the Form-2 filed during the relevant period under assessment that the company had allotted 32,00,000 No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "The relevant facts as appearing from the assessment order and record are that the assessee company has shown a turnover of Rs. 0/- and Income of RS.(-) 25,850/- . It was noted that share capital of Rs. 35,91,250/- and Share Premium of Rs. 29,14,58,750/- was received by the assessee in lieu of 35,91,750/- nos. of shares issued. The assessee company does not show any business activities to justify receipt of such high premium for its share. Further the assessee has invested the amount received as share capital and premium in shares of other companies. During the assessment proceeding, notice u/s. 131 of the I.T.Act. 1961 were not issued to the Directors, hence details remain unverifiable. As has been pointed out ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....find that no consequential enquiry was conducted on receipt of the documents requisitioned. It is apparent therefore, that the assessment order suffers from grave error which has caused prejudice to the revenue as .the A.O. have accepted the claim of the assessee without making enquiries which were required to be made in view of the relevant facts of the case, No enquiry had been made to ascertain the capacity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers. From the above discussion it is obvious that the impugned assessment order is erroneous in so far. as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. I therefore, hold that the assessment order dt. 26.03.2014 is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue." 5. The CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he additional ground is a legal ground and could be decided on the basis of facts available on record and keeping in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation 229 ITR 383, we admit the additional ground for adjudication. 8. We have heard the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. This Tribunal had dealt with the identical case in which identical issues had been considered and decided in the case of Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT in ITA No.1104/Kol/2014. This Tribunal has drawn the following conclusions :- "A. Contention of the assessee that since the AO of the assessee-company was not empowered to examine or make any addition on account of receipt of share capi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the interest of the revenue on that score itself. C. In the given facts and circumstances of all such cases, the 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. 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 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act had not directed the addition of the sum received as share capital and share premium but has set aside the order of AO and directed the AO to make a fresh enquiry with regard to the creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transactions. It was submitted by him that in the present case, no notice u/s 263 of the Act was served on the assessee personally before the impugned order was passed. The proper course for the CIT in such circumstances would have been to set aside the order of the AO dated 26.03.2014 and direct the AO to conduct fresh enquiry as was done in the group of cases decided by this Tribunal in which the lead order was passed in the case of Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It was his su....