Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals concerned assessment years 2014-15 and 2012-13, where the CIT invoked Section 263. The assessee's counsel withdrew his Power of Attorney, stating the Directors' whereabouts were unknown. The assessee did not appear, and the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing with the assistance of the CIT DR.
Held
The Tribunal found no error in the CIT's order passed under Section 263, considering the inability of the AO to conduct a proper inquiry into the share application money and premium received by the assessee, especially when applicants were from various distant locations.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT correctly invoked Section 263 when the AO had not conducted a proper inquiry into the genuineness and verification of share application money and premium.
Sections Cited
263, 148, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The present two appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against the separate orders of ld. A.Y.2014-15 & 2012-13 2 Commissioner of Income Tax (in short ‘the CIT) dated 21.02.2019 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2014-15 and 2012-13 respectively.
3rd April,2025 was the 36th occasion when these appeals were listed for hearing. But inspite of service of notice, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. A perusal of the record would indicate that earlier Shri Ajay Jain, Chartered Accountant was the counsel of the assessee. He was present in the Court and we enquired from him. He submitted that he has withdrawn his Power of Attorney and he has no instructions. He further pointed out that whereabouts of the Directors of the assessee company is not known at present, to the Department as well as to him.
Compelled with this situation, he withdrew his Power of Attorney. The Tribunal has affected the service on the address given by the assessee in Form No. 36 in both the years. Therefore, under the compelling circumstances, we have concluded the hearing with the assistance of ld. CIT DR. A.Y.2014-15 & 2012-13 3
The facts on all vital points are common in both the years, therefore, for the facility of reference, we are taking the facts from assessment year 2012-13 but all important facts will be taken note simultaneously. It emerges out from the record that assessee has filed its return of income electronically on 30.09.2012 and 29.11.2014 declaring income of Rs.2,10,950/- and ‘nil’ in assessment year 2012-13 and 2014-15 respectively. In assessment year 2012-13, assessment was reopened by issuing of notice under Section 148 whereas in assessment year 2014-15, scrutiny assessment was taken place. A perusal of the record would indicate that in assessment year 2012-13, the share capital was increased by a sum of Rs.57,80,000/-.
Apart from this amount, assessee has received premium of Rs.98,65,000/-. In assessment year 2014-15, the share capital increased by a sum of Rs. 3,59,66,670/-. The AO has accepted alleged share application money partly.
The Commissioner has gone through the record carefully and formed an opinion that while accepting the share application money alongwith premium, AO has not A.Y.2014-15 & 2012-13 4 carried out any investigation, rather it emerges out that assessment order was passed on 29.12.2016 and assessee has submitted details on 16.12.2016. There was no occasion for the AO to conduct an enquiry on the details submitted by the assessee. Therefore, he took action under Section 263 in both the years and set aside both the assessment orders.
With the assistance of ld. CIT DR, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that assessee has received share application money alongwith share premium. In assessment year 2012-13, the detail of share application has been noticed by the AO but AO could not carry out the enquiry as contemplated under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. In other words, it was practically not possible for him to verify identity of the share applicants, their credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction because some of the share applicants were from Kanpur, Shahjahanpur (UP), Rampur (District Pilibhit) etc.
The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal and did not submit any details in support of its appeals. After going through the order of the CIT passed under Section 263 of the A.Y.2014-15 & 2012-13 5 Act, we do not find any error. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
In the result, both appeals are dismissed.