TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the 'Act'), relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The facts of the case are brought out by the ld. CIT at pages 1 & 2 of his order which is extracted for ready reference:- "In the instant case the return of income was filed declaring income of Rs. 820/-.The Balance Sheet of the company shows share capital of RS.9,56,00,000/- and Reserve (Share premium) of RS.9,17,76,000/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a letter before the A.O. on 23.08.2011 stating that intimation u/s 143(1) had not been received and that income of RS.46,500/-had not been shown in its return of income by mistake. The Assessing Officer, on receipt of this letter, issued notice u/s.148 and subsequently, passed order u/s.147/ 143(3) on 21.12.2011 det....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....directorship if applicable. He should examine them on oath to verify their credentials as director and reach a logical conclusion regarding the controlling interest. iii) The A.O. is directed examine the source of realization from the liquidation of assets shown in the balance sheet after the change of Directors, if any. After conducting the inquiries & verification as directed above, the A.O. should pass a speaking order. providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The impugned order u/s 148 is accordingly set aside and assessment should be done afresh." 4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Sujoy Sen, objects to this order u/s 263, mainly on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case-law cited, we hold as follows:- In the case of M/s. Sapphire Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata, in ITA No. 855/Kol/2015, Assessment Year 2008-09, order dt. 08/12/2017, the "B" Bench of the Kolkata, ITAT has held as follows:- "5. We have perused the relevant material on record. It is relevant to mention that we have disposed of more than 500 cases involving same issue through certain orders with the main order having been passed in a group of cases led by Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (ITA No.1104/Kol/2014) dated 30.7.2015 for the A.Y. 2009- 10. 6. We find as has also been admitted by the ld. DR and the AR that facts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent circumstances, he was not obliged to positively indicate the deficiencies in the assessment order on merits on the question of issue of share capital at a huge premium ; and v) the AO in the given circumstances can't be said to have taken a possible view as the revision is sought to be done on the premise that the AO did not make enquiry thereby rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to 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 requirem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g cannot render the order void ab initio. At any rate, it is an irregularity. K. Search proceedings do not debar the CIT from revising order u/s passed u/s 147 of the Act. 7. Some or all of the aforesaid conclusions are applicable to the case of the assessee in the present appeal also. Consequently the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee will have to be dismissed as devoid of merit. It may also be relevant to point out that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (supra) was the subject matter of the appeal by the assessee before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Raj Mandir Estates (P)Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT 386 ITR 162 (Cal) was plea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act, effective only from Assessment Year 2013-14, the genuineness of the share capital in a Private Limited Company can be examined in the course of assessment and if found to be not genuine the same could be taxed under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. These statements of the ld. CIT in his order passed u/s 263 of the Act, is objected to by the assessee. These observations, in our view, does not tantamount to holding that the amendment by way of introduction of proviso to Section 68 of the Act, is retrospective in nature. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held as follows:- "We need not decide in this case as to whether the proviso to Section 68 of the Income Tax ....