Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2024 (7) TMI 402 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - AO had not made any addition with respect to the cash deposits made in the bank account and unsecured loan received of the assessee company during the year under consideration i.e. the issue based on which its case was reopened by him u/s. 147 - HELD THAT - When the A.O had not made any addition with respect to the cash deposits made in the bank account of the assessee company during the year under consideration i.e. the issue based on which its case was reopened by him u/s. 147 of the Act and thus was divested of his jurisdiction from making any further independent addition /disallowance therefore the Pr. CIT could not have held the re-assessment order so passed by him as erroneous for the reason that he had failed to carry out verification on such independent issues. It is only in a case where the issues before the Commissioner at the time of exercising powers under Section 263 of the Act relate to the subject matter of re-assessment the same would bring the order of reassessment within the realm of the jurisdiction of the Commissioner u/s. 263 of the Act. Also the period of limitation for exercising jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act would start from the date of the re-assessment order. However if the subject matter of the re-assessment is distinct and different as in the present case before us then in that case the relevant date for the purpose of determination of period of limitation for exercising powers under Section 263 of the Act would be the date of the original assessment order. We thus are of the view that the Pr. CIT had exceeded the jurisdiction vested with him u/s. 263 of the Act with respect to the aforesaid two issues viz. (i) sum received by the assessee company as share capital/premium AND (ii) sum received by the assessee company as unsecured loans from three persons as the same did not form the subject matter of the reassessment order passed the A.O u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3). Accordingly the revision of the order passed by the A.O u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act being not as per the mandate of law cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down. Decided in favour of assessee.
|