TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OUNTANT MEMBER ) Revenue by : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi, DR Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, AR ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the Act ). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2011-12 on 30.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 26.02.2014 determining the income at Rs. Nil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F Bench, Mumbai (ITA No. 3062/Mum/2016) for the impugned assessment year vide order dated 12.04.2017 and we produce below the concluding paragraphs : 4.4.5 For the purpose of revision under section 263 of the Act, what is relevant is to decide whether the view adopted by the AO in the order of assessment, while considering the issue of disallowance under section 14A r.w. rule 8D of the Rules, was a possible view, notwithstanding the fact that the learned CIT entertains a different view/opinion on the same set of facts. In the case on hand, as spelt out earlier in this order, and which we again reiterate, that the learned CIT has not controverted the factual aspects of the AO s finding that no disallowance of interest on loans debited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. (243 ITR 83) (SC), CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282) (SC) and Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. (323 ITR 632) (Bom). In this factual and legal matrix of the case and considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that since the AO has come to a finding and taken a possible view in the matter after application of mind, the conditions precedent for the learned CIT for invoking jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act did not exist and therefore the learned CIT exceeded his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. In this view of the matter, we hold that the impugned order of the learned CIT is unsustainable in law and accordingly set aside/quash the order of the learned CIT passed under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
