Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1457 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - sum paid towards pension fund but there is corresponding payment of employer and employee contribution to P.F. - Held that:- No dispute about the settled legal proposition as per hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] that the legislative expression “prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue” has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Their lordships made it clear that every loss of revenue as a consequence of the Assessing Officer’s order cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The CIT’s former remand direction as related to an expenditure head of ₹23,32/- and ledger copy of various loans to be re-verified whereas the PCIT second show cause notice in issue raised two more issues of various other heads of expenditure i.e. car maintenance, car insurance, the business promotion, site expenses employee’s contribution to PF and pension etc., His case is that the same had not been examined during original assessment framed which stood revised as per former CIT’s order. The PCIT clearly sought to exercises his revision jurisdiction on different issues which had nowhere been raised in first round revision order. Case file suggests that the first round regular assessment had been framed on 16.04.2012 in financial year ending on 31.03.2013 Sec. 263(2) of the Act prescribes limitation in such a case to be “after expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.” The Revenue failed to dispute that the said clause states with a negative covenant. The limitation period of two years as per this statutory provision comes to be 31.03.2015 as outer limit i.e. much earlier than earlier to the PCIT’s second show cause notices on 10.08.2017. The same is held to be hit by statutory period of limitation therefore. - PCIT’s order under challenge directing afresh assessment in his order dated 31.10.2017 is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee
|