TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 2094
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Ludhiana under Section 143(3) of the Act, on the grounds that it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The assessee challenges the validity of the revision order, contending that the PCIT's action is unjustified and beyond the scope of Section 263. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company, engaged in the business of hosiery, increased its share capital from Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs. 75,00,000 during the financial year relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18 by issuing 5,20,840 shares at a face value of Rs. 10 each with a premium of Rs. 10 per share, aggregating to Rs. 1,04,16,800 as share application money. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 28/12/2019, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... balance sheet were accurate and that the discrepancy in the shareholder list was merely a clerical/typographical error. It was further submitted that if the totals in the shareholder list were recalculated correctly, they would be in alignment with the balance sheet, and no adverse inference should be drawn. Upon passing the order, the Ld. CIT acknowledged that this matter warranted verification at the level of the AO and directed the AO to examine it accordingly. However, in the same order, the Ld. CIT also directed the AO to examine a fresh issue pertaining to the premium charged on shares (Rs. 10 face value shares being issued at Rs. 20). 3.1 It is respectfully submitted that this new issue was neither mentioned in the original show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a mismatch in the number of shares reported in different documents. The Ld CIT submitted that the assessee has issued share to the share holders numbering 294590 whereas at the time of assessment the assessee has filed list of share holders intimating number of share allotted to assessee numbering 631000/-. Ld. CIT stated that the AO didn't check if the share capital was genuine or if the share premium follows the rules under Section 56(2)(viib). The PCIT believes the AO's lack of inquiry made the order incorrect. 4.1 Regarding the share count discrepancy, we find the PCIT's concern is based on a misunderstanding. The assessee explained that the 2,94,590 shares mentioned in the response were for the current year, while the 6,31,000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) - Assessment year 2001-02 - Whether there is nothing in section 263 to raise a prior notice detailing specific grounds on which revision of assessment order is tentatively being proposed to status of a mandatory showcause notice, affecting initiation of exercise in absence thereof or to require Commissioner to confine himself to terms of notice and foreclosing consideration of any other issue or question of fact - Held, yes - Whether Commissioner is free to exercise his jurisdiction on consideration of all relevant facts but a full opportunity to controvert same and to explain circumstances surrounding such facts, as may be considered relevant by assessee, must be afforded to him by Commissioner prior to finalization of decision - Held, y....