JOIE DE VIVRE RESORTS AND PLANTATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 6, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2437/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 November 2016AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order under section 263, finding that the Assessing Officer had not conducted adequate inquiries. The assessment order was set aside for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT's order under section 263 was listed multiple times, but the assessee failed to appear. The revenue's representative argued that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to the Assessing Officer's failure to make proper inquiries regarding share application money and share capital at a premium.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT correctly exercised powers under Section 263 to revise an assessment order that was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to inadequate inquiries by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJENDRA & SHRI C.N. PRASAD

For Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, D.R
Hearing: 02.11.2016Pronounced: 30.11.2016

सुनवाई क' तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02.11.2016 सुनवाई क' तारीख सुनवाई क' तारीख सुनवाई क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 घोषणा क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad, Judicial Member:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CIT) dated 23.03.2015 for the assessment year 2009-10 passed under section 263 of the Act. The case was posted for several times from time to time. The Ld. A.R. took several adjournments and at the last occasion on 14.06.2016 a paper book was also filed and sought for adjournment. Subsequently, the matter was posted on 19.07.2016, 27.06.2016 and 07.09.2016 and nobody appeared in any of these occasions. A notice was issued by the registry and served on the 2 M/s. Joie De Vivre Resorts and Plantations Pvt. Ltd. assessee posting the case for hearing on 02.11.2016. When the matter was called for hearing on 02.11.2016, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Since the notice was served and assessee is not interested in pursuing the matter we dispose of the appeal on hearing the Ld. D.R. on merits.

2.

The Ld. D.R. submits that in this case assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 on 25.03.2013 for the assessment year under consideration i.e. 2009-10. The Ld. D.R. submits that the Ld. CIT has issued notice under section 263 for reopening the assessment as the assessment order passed under section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for the reason that the Assessing Officer has failed to make enquiries in respect of the accommodation entries obtained by the assessee in respect of its share application money, share capital at a premium as the assessee has not proved the genuineness of the subscription of share capital issued at premium and creditworthiness of the subscribers. Therefore, the Ld. D.R. submits that since the Assessing Officer has not made any enquiries and completed the assessment which resulted in assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, the Ld. D.R. vehemently supporting the orders of the Ld. CIT submits that as the Assessing Officer did not make relevant and meaningful enquiries as warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case and on account of his acting in a mechanical fashion and completing the assessment, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, the Ld. CIT has rightly exercised the powers under section 263 and set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 25.03.2013 with a direction to re do the assessment afresh after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. D.R. submits that the assessee should not have any grievance as the Ld. CIT has only restored the assessment for the fresh adjudication after making enquiries.

3 M/s. Joie De Vivre Resorts and Plantations Pvt. Ltd.

3.

We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the orders of the authorities below. The assessee did not present and not controverted any of the submissions of the Ld. D.R. and the findings of the Ld. CIT in his order under section 263. Thus, we sustain the order of the Ld. CIT passed under section 263 and reject the grounds of the assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →