TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich the Officer may have to pass pursuant to the direction issued by the Commissioner under Section 263. the assessing officer has the authority to increase the liability of the assessee pursuant to orders issued under Section 263 by the Commissioner and pursuant to orders of enhancement which the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) can issue under Section 251(1) (a) while deciding the appeal tiled by the assessee. We therefore hold that the proviso to Section 14A prohibits all situations where the Officer is otherwise entitled or required to revise an assessment which includes orders issued by the Commissioner under Section 263 or order of enhancement issued by the CIT (Appeals) in exercise of his power above referred - decided in favo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 1998-1999 was passed on 23.2.2001 disallowing ₹ 1,50,000/- being the proportionate operation expenses. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance but directed the Assessing Officer to consider disallowance of ₹ 2,61,06,277/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. In ITA 299/02, the Tribunal upheld the order of the 1st Appellate Authority. Against the order of the Tribunal, the assessee filed ITA 14/02. By judgment dated 3rd October 2005, the appeal was disposed of by this court, holding that the impact of Section 14A and the proviso were not considered by the authorities below and the Tribunal and on that basis, the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment year 2000-2001 that were finalised when the proviso was introduced without making any disallowance under Section 14A, were allowed to achieve finality. Disallowance under Section 14A was intended to be made only for pending assessments and for assessments for for the assessment years commencing from 2001-2002 onwards. 4. However, this judgment was sought to be distinguished by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue by contending that the proviso only fetters on the powers of the Assessing Officer. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee that contention was also raised by the Revenue and the same has been negatived by this court in the judgment reported in The Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here deductions for earning exempted income would have been allowed and therefore unless the proviso applies to Commissioner of Income tax as well, the purpose of the proviso will be defeated. Further, in our view, the bar against the assessing officer passing an order enhancing the assessment stated in the proviso takes in an order which the Officer may have to pass pursuant to the direction issued by the Commissioner under Section 263. Even though standing counsel submitted that the proviso is applicable only to proceedings that can be issued by the assessing officer under Sections 147 and 154, we feel besides the powers of the Officer under Sections 147 154, the assessing officer has the authority to increase the liability of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
