9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elling the order passed by Id AO without satisfying the conditions as laid down in section 263 of the IT Act and there was no justification of initiation the proceeding u/s 263 if the I.T. Act, 1961 as the condition laid down for the invocation of such provision was not reflected in the order passed by the Ld. CIT. 3. The Ld CIT II exceeded his jurisdiction as the CIT does not have the power to revise the case when the facts have been considered and adjudicated by the A.O. in the light of the decisions of higher judicial authorities. 4. That the Ld CIT II grossly erred in on facts and law while concluding 'ld AO has not examined the issue of Carry forward of Loss and Unabsorbed Depreciation, without appreciating the fact that in the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by Learned A.R. of the assessee that on pages 14 to 16 of the paper book are the notices issued by Assessing Officer u/s 142(1) of the Act on 14/07/2011 and the reply of the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer is available on pages 18 to 20 of the paper book. He submitted that enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer and reply was submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer on all issues and therefore, the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and hence, the order of learned CIT u/s 263 is without jurisdiction and should be quashed. 4. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the order of CIT. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per the order pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion and contingencies and sum of Rs. 131.30 lac is debited in the appropriation account as statutory reserve. He has also noted that there is no detail available in respect of addition of Rs. 25.05 lac and therefore, it implies that the assessee has debited only amount of Rs. 25.05 lac to avoid attention of Department towards the amount of Rs. 1641.37 lac debited in profit & loss account. 5.3 The fourth objection of learned CIT is that the assessee has claimed amortization of Government securities at Rs. 99,32,984/- for which the assessee was required to furnish details vide Para 6 of written questionnaire dated 14/07/2011 but in compliance, no reply has been filed by the assessee on this issue. 6. This is settled position of law by now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 6.1 On the second issue also, we find that although enquiry was raised by the Assessing Officer in respect of loss on investment but as per reply furnished by the assessee, it comes out that such loss is in respect of sale of investment and therefore the Assessing Officer was required to make enquiry as to whether such loss is eligible for set off against business income. Hence, on this issue, there is lack of enquiry as well as lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer resulting into assessment order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 6.2 On the third issue, there is no enquiry by the Assessing Officer and therefore, there is lack ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
