TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt enshrined in the provision is to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which has been complied with in all such cases. 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 order for the purposes of section 263. In all the cases, the orders have been passed within the time limit. 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 and not other CIT. Addition in the hands of a company can be made u/s 68 in its first year of incorporation. After amalgamation, no order can be passed u/s 263 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds of appeal, we are proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. Before taking up the disposal of the instant appeals on merits, we consider it expedient to record that these have earlier come up for hearing on several occasions and the assesses have sought adjournments on one pretext or the other. A few days back, these were fixed for hearing, when Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Advocate filed copies of the letters written by him to these assesses withdrawing his Power of attorney. These cases were adjourned for today and the Registry was directed to intimate these assesses directly by Speed post and also by telephone, if possible. The Registry has done the needful. Today, when these appeals were cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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. 5. We find as has also been admitted by the ld. DR that facts and circumstances of the cases 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 the assesseecompany 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. 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 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), h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
