Anurodh Infrastructure Ltd, Kolkata V. PCIT-4, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 490/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1486 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOULEAN HANGSHING
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 147; 68; 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI WASE EM AHMED, AM ] I.T.A NO.490/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-1 2 ANURODH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. -VS- PR.C.I.T,, KOL- 4, KOLKATA KOLKATA [PAN : AAJCA 1464 E] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI GOULEAN HANGSHING, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 25.07.2017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.07.2017. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM THROUGH THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE ASSAILS THE CORRE CTNESS OF ORDER DT.02.03.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CIT) U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED THE ACT) IN RELATION TO THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 25.07.2017 WAS SENT BY REGISTERED POST TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY IT IN FORM NO.36 FOR SERVICE OF NO TICES. THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED. TODAY, WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CAL LED UP FOR HEARING, NEITHER THERE WAS ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION NOR ANY BODY PUT IN APP EARANCE AT ALL WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED AG AINST THE ASSESSEE BY SEVERAL ORDERS PASSED BY THIS BENCH INCLUDING SUBHLAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (INFRA) . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE TAKING UP THIS APPEAL F OR DISPOSAL ON MERITS EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 2 ITA NO.490/KOL/2017 ANURODH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. A.YR.2011-12 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE A SSESSE IS SIMILAR TO THE GROUP OF CASES ALREADY DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPH. THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WITH MEAGRE I NCOME WOULD FILE RETURNS OF INCOME SHOWING RECEIPT OF HUGE SHARE CAPITAL AND HUGE SHAR E PREMIUM WITHOUT ANY FINANCIAL JUSTIFICATION. INTIMATION WAS ISSUED U/S 143(1); T HEREAFTER NOTICES U/S 148 WAS ISSUED EITHER AT THE INSTANCE OF SUCH COMPANIES DIVULGING A PALTRY ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OR OTHERWISE ; ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 AFTER MAKING NOMINAL ADDITIONS AND THE AOS, DURING THE COURSE OF SUCH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WOULD MAKE SOME FORMAL ENQUIRIES ABOUT SHARES ISSUE D BY SUCH COMPANIES AT HUGE PREMIUM BY ISSUING NOTICES U/S 133(6) TO SOME OF TH E SHAREHOLDERS AND GETTING SATISFIED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION. THE JURISDICTION AL CITS HAVE PASSED ORDERS U/S 263 IN ALL SUCH CASES, WHICH HAVE BEEN ASSAILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECOR D. 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 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. THE GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE TO THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE AC T ARE ALSO IDENTICAL TO SOME OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE GROUP OF APPEALS REFERRED TO IN PARA-2 OF THIS ORDER. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE READ AS FOLLOWS :- 1. THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE HON'BLE CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 AND ENH ANCING ASSESSED INCOME U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY RS. 40,01,00,000/-. 3. FOR THAT THE HON'BLE CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HO LDING THAT CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS FROM WHOM SHARE CAPITA L MONEY WAS RECEIVED IN THE INSTANT YEAR REMAINS TO BE VERIFIED THROUGH THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AFTER MAKING PROPER VERIFICATION. 3 ITA NO.490/KOL/2017 ANURODH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. A.YR.2011-12 3 4. FOR THAT THE HON'BLE CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN EN HANCING THE ASSESSED INCOME WITHOUT MAKING PROPER /AFRESH VERIFICATION IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE THEN LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3 ) OF THE ACT ON 25.03.2014 AFTER ARRIVING AT COMPLETE SATISFACTION. 5. FOR THAT IN EXERCISING REVISIONARY POWERS U/S 26 3 THE HON'BLE CIT LOST SIGHT OF THE WELL SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT IN THE ASSESSM ENT U/S 143(3), THE AO IS NOT ENTITLED TO EMBARK UPON A FISHING EXPEDITION AND TO MAKE ROVING ENQUIRIES AS SUCH, ASSUMING BUT NOT ADMITTING THAT PROPER ENQUIRES WER E NOT DONE IN RESPECT OF THE SHARE CAPITAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 5. WE FIND THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASES UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE DECIDED EARLIER. 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 ADDITION ON ACCOUN T 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 ASSESSMEN T 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, NOTWITHSTANDING THE JUR ISDICTION OF THE AO IN MAKING ENQUIRIES ON THE ISSUES OR MATTERS AS HE CON SIDERS FIT IN TERMS OF SECTION 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS RELE VANT 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 EMP OWERED 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 OB LIGED TO POSITIVELY 4 ITA NO.490/KOL/2017 ANURODH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. A.YR.2011-12 4 INDICATE THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER O N 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 THEREBY RENDERING THE ASSES SMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE 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 OTHERWIS E. FURTHER THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 263 STRICTLY AS P ER THE TERMS OF SECTION 282 OF THE ACT. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT ENSHRINED IN THE PROVISIO N IS TO GIVE AN 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. 143(3) AND NOT THE DATE OF INTIMATION ISSUED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS NOT AN ORDER FOR THE PU RPOSES OF SECTION 263. IN ALL THE CASES, THE ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED WITHIN THE T IME 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 T HE ASSESSEE IS TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE BY EITHER FILING RETURNS, AFTER AMALGAMATIO N, 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 SUBMIS SIONS OF THE ASSESSEE SENT AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING CANNOT RENDER THE O RDER 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. IT IS NOTICED THAT ALL OR SOME OF THE ABOVE CO NCLUSIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS APPEAL ALSO . IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION AND FOLL OWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN SUBHLAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) , WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5 ITA NO.490/KOL/2017 ANURODH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. A.YR.2011-12 5 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28.07.2017. SD/- SD/- [WASEEM AHMED] [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28.07.2017. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.ANURODH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., 319/21, JESSORE ROAD , KHUDIRAM COLONY, KOLKATA- 700074. 2. PR. C.I.T., KOLKATA-4, KOLKATA. 3..CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SR. PRI VATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O., ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES