TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the Principal CIT was fully justified in setting aside the same vide her impugned order passed under section 263. We, therefore, uphold the said order of the Principal CIT and dismiss this appeal of the assessee. - I.T.A. No. 798/KOL/2015 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2018 - Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ) And Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi , Judicial Member For The Appellant : Shri J .P. Khai tan, Sr. Advocate, Shri P. Jhunjhunwala, Advocate and Shri S. Bhowmick, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Devi Sharan Singh, CIT, D.R. ORDER Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ):- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Principal Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 263 on 23.12.2013 requiring the assessee to offer its explanation in the matter. In reply, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee-company that the issue of taxability or otherwise of the profit on the sale of shares of Phoenix Yule Ltd. and Dishergarh Power Supply Co. Ltd. was under consideration of BIFR and the BIFR vide its order dated 24th September, 2013 had directed the Income Tax Department to consider the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 45 of the Act. It was submitted that a detailed submission was filed by the Income Tax Department in this regard and the matter was still pending before the BIFR. This submission made on behalf of the assessee did not find favour with the ld. Principal CIT. She held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opy of reply dated 22.11.2012 filed by the assessee placed at pages no. 49 50 of the paper book to show that the relevant details required by the Assessing Officer were duly furnished by the assessee. He also invited our attention to the letter dated February 23, 2012 written by the Secretary of the Department of Heavy Industry to the Secretary of the Department of Revenue (copy at page no. 304 of the paper book) recommending consideration of assessee s claim favourably to obviate financial hardship and derailment of the revival process. He also referred to the letter dated March 13, 2013 received by the assessee from Jt. Director of Income Tax (Recovery) (copy at pages no. 191 192 of the paper book) and reply given by the assessee vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that the claim of the assessee for exemption has not been finally accepted by the BIFR, which clearly shows that the order passed by the Assessing Officer allowing the claim of the assessee for exemption without making any enquiry in the matter was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the ld. Principal CIT was fully justified in setting aside the same by exercising the powers conferred upon her under section 263 of the Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the ld. counsel for the assessee has relied on the notice dated 25.10.2011 issued by the Assessing Officer under section 142(1) of the Act (copy at pages no. 46 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision was communicated by the Income Tax Department to the BIFR as well as to the assessee-company on 14.03.2011 denying relief under section 111A, 112 and 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. It appears that the assessee, however, still sought relief under section 45 of the Income Tax Act and the same was also finally denied by the Income Tax Department vide letter dated 20.05.2013 clarifying that no relief under section 45 of the Income Tax Act was envisaged in the sanctioned scheme of BIFR. As rightly contended by the ld. D.R., there was thus no positive development whatsoever to show that the claim of the assessee for exemption was under consideration and the same was likely to be allowed at the relevant time when the assessment order came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
