G.C. Gupta, J. - (1.) The subject matter of challenge in the appeal is a judgment and order dated 30th July, 2015 passed by the learned Tribunal disposing of 19 several appeals by a common judgment. All the aforesaid 19 appeals were preferred by 19 several assessees. The appellant in this case is Ramshila Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., that is to say, one of the 19 appellants before the Tribunal. In dealing with this appeal we are only concerned with the appellant, Ramshila Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Our findings and observations are naturally restricted to the appellant before us. The relevant assessment year was 2008 -2009. Return was filed on 6th November, 2008 showing loss of a sum of Rs. 4053/ - and seeking refund of a sum of Rs. 39,546/ -. From the profit and loss account it appears that a sum of Rs. 27,232/ - was written off allegedly incurred on account of preliminary expenses. A sum of Rs. 92,000/ -, on the asset side, on account of preliminary expenses, was shown in the balance -sheet. From the balance -sheet, it also appears that as at 31st March, 2007, the share capital was Rs. 63.63 lacs and the reserve and surplus was Rs. 59.70 lacs approximately. However, as on 31st March, 2008 that is to say in the relevant previous year the share capital rose to Rs. 2,57,00,000/ - approximately and the reserve and surplus rose to Rs. 37.52 crores approximately. There was no scrutiny assessment. Refund as prayed for was duly granted by a cheque dated 8th May, 2009 as would appear from page 191 of the additional papers submitted by Mr. Poddar. On 12th April, 2010 a notice under Sec. 148 was issued to the assessee, a copy whereof is at page 192 of the additional papers filed by Mr. Poddar. Assessment under Sec. 147/143(3) was completed on 21st May, 2010 by disallowing a sum of Rs. 23,000/ - under Sec. 35D by which the profit and loss account had been debited on account of preliminary expenses. A notice under Sec. 263 was issued on 18th March, 2013, which, it is claimed by the revenue, was served at the last known address of the assessee i.e. at 4, G.C. Avenue by affixation. It is also claimed that service was sought to be effected on 18th March, 2013 itself without success and thereafter, on 19th March, 2013 the service was effected by affixation, as would appear from the document appearing at page 590 signed by the Income Tax Inspector. The notice dated 18th March, 2013 required the assessee to appear on 25th March, 2013 along with its written submissions, if any, to show cause as to why the assessment made under Sec. 147/143(3) on 21st May, 2010 should not be revised under Sec. 263 of the Income Tax Act. An order under Sec. 263 was passed ex parte by the CIT on 26th March, 2013 setting aside the order dated 21st May, 2010 passed under Sec. 147/143(3) and remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer with the following directions: - - "i] Examine the genuineness and source of share capital, not on a test check basis but in respect of each and every shareholder by conducting independent enquiry not through the assessee. The bank account for the entire period should be examined in the course of verification to find out the money trail of the share capital. ii] Further the A.O. should examine the directors as well as examine the circumstances which necessitated the change in directorship if applicable. He should examine them on oath to verify their credentials as director and reach a logical conclusion regarding the controlling interest. iii] The A.O. is directed to examine the source of realization from the liquidation of assets shown in the balance sheet after the change of Directors, if any. After conducting the inquiries & verification as directed above, the A.O. should pass a speaking order, providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee."
(2.) Challenging the aforesaid order of the CIT, the assessee unsuccessfully approached the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The assessee is, therefore, before us.
(3.) Mr. Poddar, learned senior advocate appearing for the assessee/appellant, has pressed the following questions of law: - - "(a) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata -II, had jurisdiction over the appellant at the time of issue of the Show Cause notice on 18th March, 2013 and passing of the order on 26th March, 2013 under Sec. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in spite of transfer of jurisdiction to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolkata vide an order dated 3rd September, 2012 under Sec. 127 (2)(a) of the said Act and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse? (b) Whether and in any event, the order under Sec. 263 was passed without granting any opportunity to the appellant and the purported findings of the Tribunal regarding service of notice and grant of opportunity are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse -;