M/s Auroplas Gold Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known as M/S - Ranisati Dealcomm Pvt Ltd), Kolkata V. C.I.T Kolkata - II, Kolkata

ITA 1488/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 148823514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUJAY SEN
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Block assessment; Time period of passing order
• Section: 133(6); 147; 68; 148; 263

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 1488, 1753, 1487, 1571, 1495, 1261 AND 149 8/KOL/13 & ITA NO.1251 & 981/KOL/14 & ITA NO. 171/KOL/15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES :D : KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JM ITA NO.1488/KOL/20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9 M/S. AUROPLAS GOLD PVT. LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. RANISATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD.) C/O SALARPURIA JAJODIA & CO., 7, C.R.AVENUE, KOLKATA- 700072. PAN: AAECR 0440 C VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, AAYAKARBHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA 700 069. ITA NO.1753/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 SHEETAL CITY REALTORS PVT. LTD., C/O PODDAR & ASSOCIATES, 9/12, LALBAZAR STREET, MERCANTILE BUILDING; 1 ST FLOOR, BLOCK-D, KOLKATA- 700001. PAN: AABCE 8664 L VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, AAYAKARBHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA 700 069. ITA NO.171/KOL/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-1 0 M/S. SUBHDHAN COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., C/O, SALARPURIA JAJODIA & CO., 7, CHITTARANJAN AVENUE, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-III, ITA NOS. 1488, 1753, 1487, 1571, 1495, 1261 AND 149 8/KOL/13 & ITA NO.1251 & 981/KOL/14 & ITA NO. 171/KOL/15 2 KOLKATA-700072. PAN: AAMCS 5760 J AAYAKARBHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA 700 069. ITA NO.1487/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 M/S.PRAGATI FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., SALARPURIA JAJODIA & CO., 7, CR AVENUE, KOLKATA- 700072. PAN : AAECP 4956 B VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-III, AAYAKARBHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA 700 069. ITA NO.981/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 M/S.SWIFT TRACOM PVT. LTD., C/O.SALARPURIA JAJODIA & CO., 7, C.R.AVENUE, KOLKATA- 700072. PAN : AAMCS 0353 B VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, AAYAKARBHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA 700 069. ITA NO.1571/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 M/S.FENCE PROJECTS PVT. LTD., C/O.SALARPURIA JAJODIA & CO., 7, C.R.AVENUE, KOLKATA- 700072. PAN : AABCF 0208M VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, AAYAKARBHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA 700 069. ITA NOS. 1488, 1753, 1487, 1571, 1495, 1261 AND 149 8/KOL/13 & ITA NO.1251 & 981/KOL/14 & ITA NO. 171/KOL/15 3 ITA NO.1495/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 M/S.SUKHSAGAR GOODS PVT.LTD., M/S.RAJESH MOHAN & ASSOCIATES, UNIT NO.18, 5 TH FLOOR, 34, G.C.AVENUE, KOLKATA 700013. PAN : AALCS 3152 K VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, AAYAKARBHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA 700 069. ITA NO.1261/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 M/S SHREE KARTIKEY COMMODITIES PVT.LTD., RAJESH MOHAN & ASSOCIATES, BAGATI HOUSE, 5 TH FLOOR, UNIT NO.18, 34, GANESH CHANDRA AVENUE, KOLKATA-700013. PAN : AALCS 3153 J VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, AAYAKARBHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA 700 069. ITA NO.1498/KOL/20 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9 M/S. EAST INDIA LEASING COMPANY LTD., C/O SALARPURIA JAJODIA & CO., 7, C.R.AVENUE, KOLKATA- 700072. PAN : AADCB 3086 B VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-I, AAYAKARBHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, ITA NOS. 1488, 1753, 1487, 1571, 1495, 1261 AND 149 8/KOL/13 & ITA NO.1251 & 981/KOL/14 & ITA NO. 171/KOL/15 4 KOLKATA 700 069. ITA NO.1215/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 SKYLARK VINCOM PVT. LTD., 27, NARAYANI BUILDING, 5 TH FLOOR, BRABOURNE ROAD, KOLKATA-700001. PAN : AALCS 5272 L VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, AAYAKARBHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA 700 069. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY : MR.SUJAY SEN, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI.S.SRIVASTAVA, CIT, DR. DATE OF HEARING : 4.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 4 .11.2015 ORDER PER BENCH APPEAL IN SUBHDHAN COMMODITIES P. LTD. VS. CIT (ITA NO. 171/K/2015) IS DELAYED BY 43 DAYS. THE ASSESSED HAS FILED PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE REA SONS OF DELAY. AS SUCH, THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON MERITS. ITA NOS. 1488, 1753, 1487, 1571, 1495, 1261 AND 149 8/KOL/13 & ITA NO.1251 & 981/KOL/14 & ITA NO. 171/KOL/15 5 2. THROUGH THESE APPEALS, DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ASSAI L THE CORRECTNESS OF SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF INCO ME-TAX (CIT) U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO C ALLED THE ACT) IN RELATION TO THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINCE T HESE APPEALS ARE BASED ON LARGELY SIMILAR FACTS AND COMMON GROUNDS OF APPE AL, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE THEM OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE S IMILAR INASMUCH AS RETURNS WERE FILED BY SUCH COMPANIES WITH MEAGRE INCOME; I NTIMATIONS WERE ISSUED U/S 143(1); THEREAFTER NOTICES U/S 148 WERE ISSUED EITHER AT THE INSTANCE OF SUCH COMPANIES DIVULGING A PALTRY ESCAP EMENT OF INCOME OR OTHERWISE ; ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PASSED U/S 143( 3) READ WITH SECTION 147 AFTER MAKING NOMINAL ADDITIONS AND THE AOS, DUR ING THE COURSE OF SUCH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, MADE SOME FORMAL ENQUI RIES ABOUT SHARES ISSUED BY SUCH COMPANIES AT HUGE PREMIUM BY ISSUING NOTICES U/S 133(6) TO SOME OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND GETTING SATISFIED W ITHOUT ANY FURTHER ITA NOS. 1488, 1753, 1487, 1571, 1495, 1261 AND 149 8/KOL/13 & ITA NO.1251 & 981/KOL/14 & ITA NO. 171/KOL/15 6 INVESTIGATION. THE JURISDICTIONAL CITS HAVE PASSED ORDERS U/S 263 IN ALL SUCH CASES, WHICH HAVE BEEN ASSAILED BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT WE HAVE DISPOSED OF MORE THAN 500 CASES INVOLVING SAME ISSUE THROUGH CE RTAIN ORDERS WITH THE MAIN ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED IN A GROUP OF CAS ES LED BY SUBHLAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (ITA NO.1104 /KOL/2014) DATED 30.7.2015 FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. 5. BOTH THE SIDES HAVE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE DECIDED EARLIER, EXCEPT FOR THE SEPARATE ARGUMENTS MADE, WHICH WE WILL ADVERT TO SHORTLY. IN OUR AFORESAID ORDER IN SUBHLAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., VS. CIT (ITA NO. 1104/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2009-10) , WE HAVE DRAWN THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS: - A. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE AO OF TH E ASSESSEE- COMPANY WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO EXAMINE OR MAKE ANY AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF SHARE CAPITAL WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM BEFORE ITA NOS. 1488, 1753, 1487, 1571, 1495, 1261 AND 149 8/KOL/13 & ITA NO.1251 & 981/KOL/14 & ITA NO. 171/KOL/15 7 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 68 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W. E.F. A.Y. 2013-14 AND HENCE THE CIT BY MEANS OF IMPUGNED ORDE R U/S 263 COULD NOT HAVE DIRECTED THE AO TO DO SO, IS UNSUSTA INABLE. B. FAILURE OF THE AO TO GIVE A LOGICAL CONCLUSION TO THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY HIM GIVES POWER TO THE CIT TO REVISE S UCH ASSESSMENT ORDER, BY HOLDING THAT :- I) THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO IN SUCH CASES CA NT 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, NOTWITHSTANDI NG THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO IN MAKING ENQUIRIES ON THE I SSUES 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 CIRCUMSTA NCES, HE WAS NOT OBLIGED TO POSITIVELY INDICATE THE DEFICIEN CIES 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 CANT 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 THEREB Y RENDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUD ICIAL 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 AFFIX TURE OR OTHERWISE. FURTHER THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THE SER VICE OF NOTICE U/S 263 STRICTLY AS PER THE TERMS OF SECTION 282 OF THE ACT. THE ONLY ITA NOS. 1488, 1753, 1487, 1571, 1495, 1261 AND 149 8/KOL/13 & ITA NO.1251 & 981/KOL/14 & ITA NO. 171/KOL/15 8 REQUIREMENT ENSHRINED IN THE PROVISION IS TO GIVE A N OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLIED WI TH IN ALL SUCH CASES. D. LIMITATION PERIOD FOR PASSING ORDER IS TO BE COUNT ED FROM THE DATE OF PASSING THE ORDER U/S 147 READ WITH SEC. 14 3(3) AND NOT THE DATE OF INTIMATION ISSUED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT, WH ICH IS NOT AN 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 J URISDICTION 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 INTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE BY EITHER FILING RETURNS, AFTER AMALGAMATION, IN THE OLD NAME OR OTHERWISE, THEN TH E 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 PARTICI PATION 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 SUBMIS SIONS OF THE ASSESSEE SENT AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING CANNO T RENDER THE ORDER VOID AB INITIO . AT ANY RATE, IT IS AN IRREGULARITY. K. SEARCH PROCEEDINGS DO NOT DEBAR THE CIT FROM REVI SING ORDER U/S PASSED U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 6. NOW WE TAKE UP THE ARGUMENTS SEPARATELY MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ITA NOS. 1488, 1753, 1487, 1571, 1495, 1261 AND 149 8/KOL/13 & ITA NO.1251 & 981/KOL/14 & ITA NO. 171/KOL/15 9 ABOVE ASSESSEES, WHICH THE LD. AR CLAIMED TO BE REL EVANT FOR ALL THE INSTANT APPEALS. FIRSTLY IT WAS ARGUED THAT SECTION 68 USES THE WORD `MAY AND HENCE A DISCRETION HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LEGISL ATURE TO THE AO TO MAKE OR NOT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION UNDER THIS SECTION IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THI S PROPOSITION WAS BOLSTERED WITH THE HELP OF A JUDGMENT FROM THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. SMT. P.K. NOORJEHAN (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC ) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF AO IS NOT SATISFIED, THEN ADD ITION IS NOT MUST. A VIEW WAS CANVASSED THAT WHEN THE AO CHOSE NOT TO M AKE ANY ADDITION BY EXERCISING HIS DISCRETION AS PER THE MANDATE OF SECTION 68, THEN THE LD. CIT IN THE INSTANT CASES WAS NOT OBLIGED TO HOLD AG AINST THE ASSESSEES. 7. WE AGREE WITH THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE JUDGMENT FROM THE AFORENOTED APEX COURT THAT THE DISCRETION LIES WITH THE AO TO MAKE OR NOT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION U/S 68, IF HE IS NOT SATIS FIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT WE ARE CONFR ONTED WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH THE AO DID NOT MAKE BEFITTING IN QUIRY IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE CIT HAS HELD THE ASSESSMENT O RDER TO BE ERRONEOUS ITA NOS. 1488, 1753, 1487, 1571, 1495, 1261 AND 149 8/KOL/13 & ITA NO.1251 & 981/KOL/14 & ITA NO. 171/KOL/15 10 AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON T HIS COUNT AND DIRECTED THE AO TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PER LAW. HE HAS NOT SUBSTITUTED HIS OPINION FOR THAT OF THE AO AND CONF IRMED THE ADDITION. HE HAS SIMPLY RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR DECIDI NG THE ISSUE AS PER LAW AND THE DECISION OF THE AO MAY GO EITHER WAY. I N SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR HAS NO A PPLICABILITY. 8. ANOTHER RELATED ARGUMENT WAS ADVANCED THAT S ECTION 68 TALKS OF THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO AS TO THE EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR CASH CREDIT. HE ACCENTUATED ON THE WORDS `IN THE OPINION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER AS USED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE SATISFACTION SHOULD BE THAT OF THE AO AND NOT THAT OF ANY OTHER AUTHORITY INCLUDING CIT. WE ARE AGAIN NOT PERSUADED BY THIS ARGUMENT. W E ARE CONCERNED WITH A CASE IN WHICH THE AO DID NOT DISCHARGE THE B URDEN CAST ON HIM AS REGARDS THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT. IN SUCH CIRCUMST ANCES, THE LD. CIT STEPPED IN TO CHECK HIS ACTION. ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE ASSESSMENT ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO ALONE AND NO OTHE R AUTHORITY. BUT IF SUCH AN EXAMINATION HAS NOT BEEN DONE WHICH HAS REN DERED THE ITA NOS. 1488, 1753, 1487, 1571, 1495, 1261 AND 149 8/KOL/13 & ITA NO.1251 & 981/KOL/14 & ITA NO. 171/KOL/15 11 ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF THE REVENUE, THEN IT IS NOT ONLY THE RIGHT BUT THE DUTY OF THE CIT TO REVISE SUCH AN ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THIS IS WHAT HAS EXACTLY HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. IF THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS ACCEPTED AND TAKEN TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSION, IT WILL AMOUNT TO RENDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OTIOSE. WE, THEREFORE, REFUSE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION. 9. THEN, THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF T HE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DT. 16.4.2015 IN CIT VS. ANSHIKHA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. IN WHICH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE GENUI NENESS OF THE RECEIPT OF SHARE CAPITAL AT PREMIUM, HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. TH IS JUDGMENT HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE BECAUS E IN THAT CASE APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST THE TRIBUNAL ORDER UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN WHICH IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WITH PREMIUM WAS THROUGH GENUINE TRANSACTIONS. MOREOVER THAT WAS APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION AND NOT AGAINST THE REVISIONAL ORDER RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR ITA NOS. 1488, 1753, 1487, 1571, 1495, 1261 AND 149 8/KOL/13 & ITA NO.1251 & 981/KOL/14 & ITA NO. 171/KOL/15 12 MAKING A PROPER AND ADEQUATE INQUIRY. 10. THE NEXT OBJECTION OF THE LD. AR WAS THAT T HE PROVISO TO SECTION 68 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS RETROSPECTIVE IN VIEW OF SE VERAL JUDGMENTS INCLUDING CIT VS. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P. LTD. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC), IN WHICH THE LEVY OF SURCHARGE ON INCOME TAX IN CASE O F BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN HELD AS PROSPECTIVE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY SU BSTANCE IN THE ARGUMENT FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST REASON IS THAT THIS JUDGMENT DOES NOT DEAL WITH PROVISO TO SECTION 68 BUT WITH THE LEVY O F SURCHARGE ON INCOME TAX IN CASE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THERE IS A LOT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PROVISIONS. THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL UNIMPEACHED R ULE THAT NO AMENDMENT CAN BE CONSTRUED AS RETROSPECTIVE. IT DEP ENDS 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 HA S ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED THREADBARE IN OUR ORDER IN SUBHLAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). RELEVANT DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MADE IN PARAS 13.U. T O 13.AE. AFTER MAKING AN ELABORATE ANALYSIS OF THE NATURE OF AMENDMENT, ITA NOS. 1488, 1753, 1487, 1571, 1495, 1261 AND 149 8/KOL/13 & ITA NO.1251 & 981/KOL/14 & ITA NO. 171/KOL/15 13 MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS OF THE FINANCE BILL, 2012, AND LEGAL POSITION AS EMANATING FROM VARIOUS JUDGMENTS FROM THE HONBLE SUMMIT COURT GOVERNING THE RETROSPECTIVE OR PROSPEC TIVE EFFECT OF AN AMENDMENT, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT INSERTION OF PROVI SO TO SECTION 68 IS RETROSPECTIVE. AS SUCH, THIS ARGUMENT, BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT, DESERVES TO MEET THE FATE OF DISMISSAL. WE ORDER AC CORDINGLY. 11. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION AND FOL LOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN SUBHLAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) , WE UPHOLD ALL THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED . THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4.11.201 5. SD/- SD/- [R.S. SYAL] [N.V. VASUDEVAN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 4 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. RG ITA NOS. 1488, 1753, 1487, 1571, 1495, 1261 AND 149 8/KOL/13 & ITA NO.1251 & 981/KOL/14 & ITA NO. 171/KOL/15 14 COPY FORWARDED TO: APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CIT (A) DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, KOLKATA. ITA NOS. 1488, 1753, 1487, 1571, 1495, 1261 AND 149 8/KOL/13 & ITA NO.1251 & 981/KOL/14 & ITA NO. 171/KOL/15 15