9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of assessment passed by A.O. was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That Pr. CIT erred in passing the order u/s 263 cancelling the order of assessment passed by the A.O. particularly when the order of assessment has merged in the order of appellate authority and Tribunal. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') was framed vide order dated 25.2.2016. While framing the assessment, the A.O. made addition in the declared income of Rs. 63,44,21,181/- and Rs. 2,69,08,343/- in respect of disallowance of lease rent and disallowance of corporate expenses. However, the Ld. Pr. CIT revised this order by invoking provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the position of law that the Ld. Pr. CIT is empowered to revise the assessment order if it is found that the assessment sought to be revised is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, law is well settled that twin conditions are required to be satisfied for assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act i.e. the order sought to be revised should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thus, two conditions are to be read in conjunction and the absence of any one of the conditions would render invoking of jurisdiction u/s 263 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306, judgement of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 363 ITR 70 and also judgement of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam 363 ITR 307 it is contended that the special leave petitions filed by the revenue against these judgements have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is contended that the Ld. Pr. CIT was not justified in revising the order on this Ground. We find merit into the contention of the assessee as the law is settled by the judicial pronouncements that if assessee has deposited EPF, which is before the due date of filing of return, there s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
