Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 614 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Held that:- The revisional proceeding was commenced within the limitation period prescribed under Section 263(2) of the Act. The Tribunal has rightly held in the order impugned that limitation period for passing the order is to be counted from the date of passing the order under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act and not the date of intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. Tribunal was justified in holding that addition in the hands of a company can be made under section 68 in its first year of incorporation - The mere fact that the assessment year is the year of commencement of business of the assessee cannot insulate it from an inquiry directed towards steps contemplated under Section 68 of the 1961 Act. No notice to show cause before passing the order under Section 263 - Held that:- We are of the view that service by post, which had been returned with the endorsement “addressee not found”, followed by an attempt at personal service and subsequent affixture would constitute substantial compliance of the provisions of Section 282 of the Act. Tribunal, being the highest fact finding body, has already come to the finding that there has been proper service. Furthermore, we find from the order of Tribunal that the appellant was heard at length on factual as well as legal issues. We do not consider it necessary to go into the question as to whether Section 282 of the Act requires compliance or not for effecting service of notice in respect of a proceeding under Section 263 of the Act as we are of the opinion that substantial compliance of the provision of Section 282(1) has been effected in the case of the assessee. We do not find any perversity on the finding of the Tribunal on this issue upholding the proceedings under section 263. first proviso to Section 68 inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 1.4.2013 applies to the Assessment Year:2008 – 2009 as held by ITAT - Held that:- Question is already covered by our judgment in the case of Pragati [2017 (3) TMI 1242 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] as specifically held that the exercise which is contemplated by the impugned order of the Commissioner was permissible under Section 68 of the 1961 Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2012. We found, in that judgment, that it was not necessary to deal with the question of retroactivity of the said provision.
|