9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction under Section 263 (1) of the said Act and after holding that such deduction had been granted by the Assessing Officer without making proper enquiry or verification, set aside the same and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after verifying the admissibility of the claim of deduction. In the appeal filed by the assessee challenging that order, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed the same by quashing the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax after recording a finding that the Assessment Officer after verifying all records had permitted such deduction. 3. The assessee is a company which provides medical facilities to patients. For the assessment year 2012-13 it showed income from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no reason to invoke jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the said Act. On that count the order passed under Section 263 of the said Act came to be set aside. 5. Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the said Act as he found that the exemption granted by the Assessing Officer was without verifying relevant material entitling such exemption and therefore the assessment order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. There was no reason for the Tribunal to set aside the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and moreover no prejudice was caused to the assessee in v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chapter VI A of the said Act. Relying upon the decisions in Income Tax Appeal No.32 of 2003 (The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dinshaw Frozen Food Ltd., Nagpur) and Income Tax Appeal No.39/2004 (Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. M/s. Dinshaw Dairy Foods Ltd.) he submitted that in assessment year 2011-12 similar exemption had been claimed and granted under Section 80 IB (11- C) of the said Act. The present assessment order which was for assessment year 2012-13 was not the initial assessment order. Hence there was no reason for the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to invoke jurisdiction under Section 263 of the said Act. The Tribunal having rightly appreciated this aspect was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Principal Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was possible. The order of the Income Tax Officer was required to be shown to have been made without any enquiry and not accordance with law. These aspects were missing in the said assessment order. We find that this observation of the Tribunal is correct considering the nature of verification and enquiry made by the Assessment Officer. 8. It is also pertinent to note that in the earlier assessment year 2011-12 similar deduction was claimed by the assessee under Section 80 IB (11-C) of the said Act and it was granted by the Assessing Officer. In the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent this position has been considered and it was observed that similar deduction having been allowed in the earlier year could not h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
