Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 1349 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - CIT proposing to revise the assessment order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act on 30/03/2016, for the reason that, the assessee company had not justified, its claim of having incurred expenditure on account of (a) Business Development Expenses & Business promotion expenses and that the AO in the assessment order had not called for the details of expenditure under these head of account to verify the genuineness and nature of the expenses - Legal argument that, order u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act, cannot be revised without cancelling the order of statutory approval given by the JCIT u/s 153D - HELD THAT:- As relying on case SHRI CH KRISHNA MURTHY [2015 (3) TMI 359 - ITAT HYDERABAD],SHRI SURENDRA L. HIRANANDANI [2018 (2) TMI 2025 - ITAT MUMBAI] and DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2017 (1) TMI 260 - ITAT PUNE] we have no other alternative but to hold that the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT is bad in law for the reason that the order of statutory approval passed u/s 153D of the Act, based on which the order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dt. 30/03/2016, was passed, was not revised and is a valid and legal order. Even otherwise, in this case, we find that the ld. Pr. CIT, without making any enquiries on his own, in a mechanical manner has set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Such general restoration of the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, without the ld. Pr. CIT making any enquiry by himself or forming any opinion on the issue, is not permitted in law. This is not a case where there is no enquiry. As per the ld. Pr. CIT, this is a case of inadequate enquiry. See JL. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD. [2014 (6) TMI 154 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], CHROMA BUSINESS LIMITED. [2003 (10) TMI 256 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C] and SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. [2009 (9) TMI 633 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Thus we hold that the revision in question is bad in law. Hence, we quash the order passed u/s 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.
|