TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been passed in a group of cases led by Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. [ 2015 (8) TMI 174 - ITAT KOLKATA ] as held 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. 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. The notices u/s 263 were properly served through affixture or otherwise. Further the law does not require the service of notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N, JM For the Assessee : None For the Department : Shri Sachchidananda Srivastava, CIT(DR) ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM Through these appeals, different assessees assail the correctness of separate orders passed by the Commissioners of Income-tax (CIT) u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called the Act ) in relation to the captioned assessment years. Since all 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. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll such cases, which have been assailed before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the ld. DR 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 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. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remise 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
