TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s followed the directions of Pr. CIT on the disputed issue of verification of sundry creditors and the ld. AR of the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings and filed the details and also information was called for u/s.133(6) of the Act in respect of sundry creditors and finally the AO has passed the order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 263. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings and as envisaged by the ld. AR the assessee has filed an appeal against the order of AO passed u/s.143(3)/263 of the Act. Pr.CIT has dealt on the disputed issue and considered the judicial decision and passed a reasoned order. - Decided against the assessee. - ITA No.343/CTK/2017 - - - Dated:- 6-9-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so as to justify exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act. 4. For that Ld CIT intends to reframe the Assessment by substituting his subjective opinion in place of the AO, which is not permissible under the law. 5. For the Ld A.O has made enquiry and even if it is inadequate that would not by itself give rise an occasion to the CIT to pass an order u/s 263 of the Income tax. Therefore the present order is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 6. For that the fact which has already been examined by the AO the direction of CIT to re-examine amounts to change of opinion, which is impermissible under the law. 7. For that other grounds if any will be urged at the time of hearing. 4. Brief facts of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., I.T.Appeal No.1399 of 2006 (Delhi High Court) 8. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of Pr. CIT. 9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The sole disputed issue is with respect to the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 of the Act. Ld. AR submitted that in the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act, the AO issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act and referred to the paper book along with questionnaire at para 4 where the AO has called for the details and sundry creditors and in reply to the notice, the assessee has filed annexure along with details of sundry creditors in support of submissions. The contention of ld. AR is that the AO has made an enquiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he constitutional bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs Union of India , AIR 1990, SC, 1984 which has been reiterated by the Hon'ble ITAT 'A' Bench, Chennai (ITA No. 1288/MDS/2015 dated 22.01.2016) in the case of M/s Medal Healthcare Pvt. Ltd Vs. Pr. CIT and held that in Income tax proceedings, the Assessing Officer is expected to record his own reason for the conclusions reached. Accordingly, I am of the view that the assessment order in question is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramapyari Devi Sarogi (1968) 67ITR84 and in the case of Smt Taradevi Agarwal Vs CIT 88 ITR 323 where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is caused to the assessee. In view of the above, the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of IT Act dated 23.03.2015 passed by the AO for the A.Y. 2012-13 is hereby set aside to the AO for adjudication of the issues afresh to that extent and reframe the assessment after proper appreciation of facts and application of law and as per the observation and direction given above. Needless to say while reframing the assessment order, the AO should provide adequate opportunity to the assessee. In the hearing proceedings before us ld. AR filed copy of consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer in proceedings u/s.143(3)/263 of the Act, dated 22.12.2017, where the AO has conducted the enquiry as per the directions of the Pr. CIT in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ack inherent jurisdiction in the subject-matter. In this case it cannot be held CIT had no jurisdiction. The question is whether assumption of jurisdiction is done by the said authority on being satisfied with the twin conditions mentioned therein. This question could and can be examined in many ways. When assessee did not take any step for stay of the order of the Assessing Officer pursuant to the impugned order of the CIT under section 263 and after having participated in the hearing of the assessment proceedings and consequently preferring appeal, we think it would not be proper for this Court at this stage to decide issue raised before us. 12. Similarly, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of DENIEL MERCHANTS P. LTD. ANR. Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
