9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the grounds of appeal is against the invalid exercise of jurisdiction by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act which is invalid for two reasons - (i) the proceedings are time barred in terms of section 263(2) of the Act and (ii) that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 05.05.2017 in compliance to notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act declaring total income at nil with current year's loss of Rs. 42,434/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act on the ground that there has been credible information with the Assessing Officer that there has been deposit of huge cash to the tune of Rs. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 equity shares at face value of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs. 490/- thereby raising Rs. 98,47,50,000/- comprising Rs. 1,95,95,000/- as share capital and Rs. 96,50,55,000/- as share premium. According to ld PCIT, the said premium is required to be added to the income of the assessee and taxed accordingly. However, the Assessing Officer did no verify the issue during the course of assessment proceedings and the assessment was framed without application of mind as no enquiries or verifications were made in the light of sec. 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Accordingly, the order passed u/s. 263/147/143(3) of the Act dated 27.08.2021 was erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of clause (a) of Explanation (2) to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidences from the assesse and found the same to be correct and accepted the returned income. The Ld. AR submitted that if at all, the revision of any assessment was to be made, that could have been done of the order passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act but since a considerable time have elapsed since the passing of the order u/s. 143(1), therefore, the same is barred by limitation in terms of provisions of section 263(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR in defense of his argument relied on the decision of of Hon'ble Apex Court in PCIT Vs. Alegendran Finance Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 1(SC).The Ld. AR submitted that on this account the revisionary jurisdiction is barred by limitation. 6. Secondly, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessment framed u/s. 263/147/143(3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee in the set aside assessment proceeding as the assessee would be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to present its case on merit and, therefore, the appeal of the assessee may kindly be dismissed. 8. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that in this case the Ld. Pr. CIT revised the assessment order passed u/s. 263/147/143(3) dated 27.08.2021 vide revisionary order dated 20.02.2024. The ld. Pr. CIT invoked the jurisdiction on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not examined the issue of the equity shares of face value of Rs. 10/- at a premium of Rs. 490/- i.e. excess premium which comes to Rs. 96,50,55,000/- and is in violation of provisions of sec. 56(2)(viib) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring. Now, the issue before us is whether the Ld. Pr. CIT could have revised the assessment framed u/s. 263/147/143(3) of the Act dated 27.08.2021 validly. In our opinion, the only issue raked by Ld. Pr. CIT while exercising the revisional jurisdiction for the first time was with respect to non-verification of source of credit of Rs. 2,85,46,000/- into the assessee's bank account only and the issue of receipt of excess share premium in violation of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act was not there. Therefore, in the set aside proceeding, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment re-examining the said issue and accepting the returned income. In our opinion, the said assessment framed vide order dated 27.08.2021 accepting the returned income is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bject matter of reason recorded is not added by the Assessing Officer no other addition could be made in the assessment framed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act. Even, therefore, the assessment framed u/s. 147/143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Moreover, the invocation of jurisdiction u/s. 263 to the other assessment u/s 143(1) is hopelessly barred by limitation and the same is beyond the time limit provided u/s. 263(2) of the Act as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in PCIT Vs. Alegendran Finance Ltd. (Supra). Thirdly, even the assessment proposed by the ld. Pr. CIT in the show cause notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act was with respect to receipt of excess share premium by issuing equity shares to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
