M/S VAIBHAVLAXMI FINANCIAL ADVISORY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ORDER PER BENCH Through these two appeals, different assesses assail the correctness of separate orders passed by the Commissioners of Income-tax (CIT) u/s relation to the captioned assessment years. Since these appeals are based on largely similar facts and common grounds of appeal, we are proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2. Briefly stated the facts of all the cases in this batch are similar inasmuch as returns were filed by such companies with meagre income; intimations were issued u/s 143(1); thereafter notices u/s 148 were issued either at the instance of such companies divulging a paltry escapement of income or otherwise ; assessment orders were passed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 after making nominal additions and the AOs, during the course of such assessment proceedings, made some formal enquiries about shares issued by such companies at huge premium by issuing notices u/s 133(6) to some of the shareholders and getting satisfied without any further investigation. The jurisdictional CITs have passed orders u/s 263 in all such cases, which have been assailed before the Tribunal. 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.

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 capital with or without premium before amendment to section 68 by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14 and hence the CIT by means of impugned order u/s 263 could not have directed the AO to do so, is unsustainable. B. Failure of the AO to give a logical conclusion to the enquiry conducted by him gives power to the CIT to revise such assessment order, by holding that :-

4 & ITA No.882/Kol/2013 i) the enquiry conducted by the AO in such cases can’t be construed as a proper enquiry; ii) CIT u/s 263 can set aside the assessment order and direct the AO to conduct a thorough enquiry, notwithstanding the jurisdiction of the AO in making enquiries on the issues or matters as he considers fit in terms of section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, which is relevant only up to the completion of assessment ; iii) Inadequate inquiry conducted by the AO in the given circumstances is as good as no enquiry and as such, the CIT was empowered to revise the assessment order ; iv) The order of the CIT is not based on irrelevant considerations and further in the present 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 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 5 & ITA No.882/Kol/2013 order for the purposes of section 263. In all the cases, the orders have been passed within the time limit. E. The CIT having jurisdiction over the AO who passed order u/s 147 read with section 143(3), has the territorial jurisdiction to pass the order u/s 263 andnot other CIT. F. Addition in the hands of a company can be made u/s 68 in its first year of incorporation. G. After amalgamation, no order can be passed u/s 263 in the name of the amalgamating company. But, where the intention of the assessee is to defraud the Revenue by either filing returns, after amalgamation, in the old name or otherwise, then the order passed in the old name is valid. H. Order passed u/s 263 on a non-working day does not become invalid, when the proceedings involving the participation of the assessee were completed on an earlier working day. I. Order u/s 263 cannot be declared as a nullity for the notice having not been signed by the CIT, when opportunity of hearing was otherwise given by the CIT. J. Refusal by the Revenue to accept the written submissions of the assessee sent after the conclusion of hearing 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.

68 cannot be considered as retrospective in view of several judgments including CIT VS. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC), in which the levy of surcharge on income tax in case of block assessment has been held as prospective. We do not find any substance in the argument for two reasons. First reason is that this judgment does not deal with proviso to section 68 but with the levy of surcharge on income tax in case of block assessment. There is a lot of difference between the two provisions. There is no universal unimpeached rule that no amendment can be construed as retrospective. It depends upon the nature of provision and the amendment as to whether it is retrospective or prospective. The second reason for our not sounding a concurring note to the argument of the ld. AR is that this issue has already been discussed threadbare in our order in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Relevant discussion has been made in paras 13.u. to 13.ae.

After making an elaborate analysis of the nature of amendment, memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2012, and Summit Court governing the retrospective or prospective effect of an amendment, it has been held that insertion of proviso to section 68 is retrospective. As such, this argument, being devoid of any merit, deserves to meet the fate of dismissal. We order accordingly.