TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Out of this bunch of appeals, three appeals filed by assessee are against consolidated order of CIT(Central), Nagpur, dated 27.03.2015 relating to assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). The assessee also filed appeal against order of CIT(A)-12, Pune, dated 25.02.2015, relating to assessment year 2011-12 against order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153B of the Act. 2. This bunch of appeals relating to the same assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, reference is being made to the facts and issues in ITA No.596/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2009-10. 3. The assessee in ITA No.596/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2009-10 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned CIT erred in passing order u/s 263 of the I.T. Act and setting aside the assessment order dt. 28.03.2013, passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C. Therefore, it is prayed to cancel the revision order passed u/s 263. 2. The learned CIT erred in holding that, no proper enquiries were carried out with respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .12.2016, which has been followed in bunch of appeals with lead order in Suyojit Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, relating to assessment years 2007-08 2011-12, order dated 28.03.2018 and recently in bunch of appeals with lead order in M/s. B.U. Bhandari Schemes Vs. Pr.CIT in ITA Nos.637 to 641/PUN/2018, relating to assessment years 2009-10 to 2013-14, order dated 14.11.2018. 7. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure operations were conducted in the Ashoka Group of cases on 20.04.2010 under section 132 of the Act. During the course of search, incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee company were impounded from the searched premises and the provisions of section 153C of the Act were invoked and thereafter, assessment in the case of assessee was taken up. The Assessing Officer re-worked the income in the hands of assessee. The assessment order was passed with the prior approval of JCIT, Central Range, Nashik, obtained vide his letter dated 28.03.2013. The Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x, Central Range-2, Pune issued under section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide his letter No.Pn/Jt CIT/CR2/Assessment/2015-16/1106 dated 17/03/2016. Thereafter, the Commissioner issued show cause notice to the assessee under section 263 of the Act. He noted that order was passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. He has raised various issues as to why the assessment order passed in the case was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. However, we are not going into the said issue as first the jurisdictional issue has been raised in the present appeal as to whether in case where the assessment has been completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act after obtaining approval of Additional CIT under section 153D of the Act, can the Commissioner invoke his revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the orders passed by Assessing Officer for all the years were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The plea of assessee before us is that once the order has been passed by Assessing Officer after obtaining approval of Additional CIT under section 153D of the Act, then the Commissioner has no power to exercise his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed with the approval of the Addl. CIT and their Lordships have held that the Assessing Officer was fully alive about the facts of the case and that is why he got necessary approval of the Addl. CIT before completing the assessment orders for all the assessment years and once that is not disputed by the Revenue, then the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax would not be justified in interfering in the approval according by the Addl. CIT for framing the assessment order and thus there was no case for setting aside the assessment order for the assessment years in question. 14.1 We find the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CH. Krishna Murthy Vs. ACIT vide ITA No.766/Hyd/2012 order dated 13- 02-2015 following the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mehtab Alam (Supra) held that CIT(A) is not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 when the order has been passed in terms of section 153D of the Act. 14.2 We find the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Trinity Infra Ventures Ltd. (Supra) had an occasion to decide an identical issue and it held that the assessment order approved by the Addl.CIT u/s.153D cannot be subject to revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer after obtaining prior approval of JCIT, Central Range-2, Pune under section 153D of the Act vide letter dated 17.03.2016. We have already deliberated upon the same issue though in respect of assessment completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act but similar proposition would apply in the present appeal also where the assessment order has been passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act, since the assessment order had been passed by taking approval of JCIT and hence, the exercise of revisionary powers by the Commissioner is both incorrect and invalid in law. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are thus, allowed. 10. The assessment in the present case has been completed by the Assessing Officer by passing order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act after taking the approval of JCIT, Central Range, Nashik and following the ratio laid down in Rasiklal M. Dhariwal (HUF) Vs. CIT (supra) and M/s. B.U. Bhandari Schemes Vs. Pr.CIT (supra), we hold that exercise of revisionary powers by the Commissioner is both incorrect and invalid in law. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are thus, allowed. 11. The facts and issues in ITA Nos.597 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
