TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [ 2010 (4) TMI 431 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY] and in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Ram Singh [ 2008 (5) TMI 200 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] has held that when no addition was made regarding the item in respect of which reasons were recorded for reopening of the assessment, the Commissioner could not exercise his jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act in order to bring to tax other items of additions. Proceedings undertaken u/s.147/148 was prima facie on the issue of remuneration of ₹ 2,00,19,537/- paid to the directors of the assessee. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax in his order surpassed his jurisdiction asking the AO to examine the issue of sale of immovable property by the assessee and issue of undisclosed TDS to be verified by the AO which were not at all the items forming part of the reasons recorded at the time of issuance of notice u/s.148. Taking we are of the considered view that the Commissioner of Income Tax was not correct in law while resorting to passing order u/s.263 and in view thereof, we quash the order passed u/s.263. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 751/PUN/2019 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2021 - Shri Inturi Rama Rao, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds, services or facilities for which payment is made so much of the expenditure as is so considered by him to be excessive or unreasonable shall not be allowed as deduction. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax had opined that in this issue also, the Assessing Officer has not examined while conducting market enquiries etc. (C) Sale of immovable property involving transaction amount of ₹ 55,85,000/- by the assessee : It was noticed from the AIR transactions reported in the Individual Transaction Statement that the assessee company has sold immovable property involving transaction amount of ₹ 55,85,000/- on 10.02.2010. However, neither the details of this transaction nor of the income from capital gains are available on records. This issue has been communicated to the assessee vide notice u/s.263 of the Act dated 05.03.2019 and in reply, the assessee mentioned that there were no such transactions made by the company during the assessment year 2020-11. This issue was set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with directions to verify the veracity of this AIR transaction as reported in ITS by conducting necessary inquiry. (D) Undisclosed TDS : The P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d paid an amount of ₹ 2,00,19,537/- towards the salary of directors without taking the prior approval of the Central Government and contravened the provisions of Section 297 and 314(1B) of the Company Act, 1956 and hence, the amount of ₹ 2,00,19,537/- was incorrectly allowed in the assessment order and that the said amount has escaped assessment within the meaning of Explanation 2(c) to Section 147 of the Act. 5.1 Thereafter, the assessee has furnished reply to the Assessing Officer running from Pages 119 onwards of the factual paper book wherein the assessee has categorically stated that original assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 21.03.2013 wherein the assessed income was of Rs.(-) 6,25,277/-. Thereafter, notice u/s.147/148 of the Act was issued by the Department since it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that amount of ₹ 2,00,19,537/- towards salary of directors have been made by the assessee without complying with the provisions of Section 297 and 314(1B) of the Company Act, 1956 and hence, the said amount was incorrectly allowed in the assessment order and the same being escaping the assessment within the meaning of Explanation 2(c) to Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment proceedings started, it was on the basis that some income had escaped assessment on the amount of remuneration to the directors since the assessee did not comply with Section 297 and 314(1B) of the Company Act, 1956. The assessee gave detailed reply to the Assessing Officer satisfying him that these provisions are not applicable in his case. The Assessing Officer therefore, stopped the re-opening proceedings and accepted the original assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Act with the total loss shown of (-) ₹ 6,25,277/- dated 29.12.2016 vide order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind and has not made any enquiry. 10. Now the next question arises, whether the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax in exercising of his power vested u/s.263 of the Act can revise that reassessment order with the intention of bringing into tax some other items which do not form part of the reasons recorded at the time of issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act. In answer to this, we find the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 ( Bom.) and the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
