TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Ld.CIT- 9 passed the revision order u/s.263 of the Act without jurisdiction as per the provisions of the Act. Therefore, we are inclined to quash the revision order passed u/s.263 of the Act on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and restore the order u/s.143(3) of the Act by the AO passed on 24.03.2014. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No.1536/Mds. /2015 - - - Dated:- 22-4-2016 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G.PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Mr.D.Anand, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr.Pathlavath Peerya,CIT, D.R ORDER PER G.PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-9 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is in pharmaceutical business, the ld.AO called for the details of expenditure for verification and disallowed salary and wages ₹ 75,100/- petrol and kerosene expenses ₹ 25,300/- and assessed income ₹ 10,60,980/-. The assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was completed by the ITO, Business ward No.VII(1),Chennai. Subsequently, the Ld.CIT-9,Chennai issued show cause notice bearing No.12/CIT-9/263/14-15, dated 10.03.2015 stating that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Based on the assessee s assessment proceedings for assessment year 2012-13, Ld.CIT found that the assessee as a coowner along with Smt.Indra Galada had sold property for ₹ 21.34 crores and assessee s sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessed to tax in Non- Corporate Range-9 under jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-7. Apart from disputing jurisdictional aspect, the ld.A.R also furnished explanations on power of attorney, sale agreements, and its disclosure as long term capital gains falling in assessment year 2012-13. The Ld. CIT considered the submissions, decisions relied by the assessee and also perused the clauses of sale agreements is of the opinion that the assessment has to be framed in the assessment year 2011-12 and before he decides on the assessment jurisdiction, treated the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and observed at page - 4 of his order as under:- 4. I have carefully considered the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO and the clauses of sale agreements and power of attorney, and consideration received from the purchaser and relied on the Tribunal decisions and concluded the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 26.03.2014 is set aside and directed the AO to levy tax on capital gains on transfer of properties at Chennai and Jaipur in the assessment year 2011-12, though assessee has offered in assessment year 2012-13 and passed the Revision order u/s.263 of the Act on 29.05.2015. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld.A.R reiterated the submissions made in the assessment proceedings and the revisional proceedings with supporting evidence and judicial decisions. Ld.A.R argued th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in rank, may, if so directed by the Board, exercise the powers and perform the functions of the income-tax authority lower in rank and any such direction issued by the Board shall be deemed to be a direction issued under sub-section (1). The ld.A.R prayed the order passed by the Ld. CIT-9 is invalid and prayed for quashing the order. 5. Contra, the ld.D.R vehemently argued and relied on the findings of the CIT and referred to the page-6 of the CIT s order and argued that the assessee has not raised any objection before the assessing authority in respect of assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2012-13 passed by the ACIT, non-corporate Circle- 3, Chennai. Having accepted the jurisdiction in the subsequent year, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ld.A.R also agreed to applicability. When the Bench questioned the ld.D.R, whether this notification is a prospective or retrospective? There was no convincing answer, and the notifications are prospective and shall be effectively implemented from the date of notification. 8. In the present case, the notification is dated 15.11.2014 and the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act was passed on 24.03.2014 falls in the jurisdiction of the CIT-7 and not in other jurisdiction. We are convinced with the arguments of the ld.A.R and perused the findings and submissions of ld.D.R on the issue of jurisdiction. Considering the apparent facts, we are of the opinion that the Ld.CIT- 9 passed the revision order u/s.263 of the Act without jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
