9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of revisionary jurisdiction by PCIT under section 263 of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of shares trading and commodity trading on NSEL Exchange. The assessee company originally filed is return of income on 28.09.2014 declaring a loss of Rs. 5,47,04,738/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing the total loss at Rs. 5,45,21,343/- after making an addition of Rs. 1,83,395/- on account of disallowance of business promotion expenses. Thereafter, a search action was carried out u/s 132 of the Act on 24.02.2016 in the case of Shri Sanjay Kumar Saraf and his group of companies. The assessee was also covered in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f search proceedings, no incriminating evidences/materials were found. Even the PCIT recorded the findings to this effect in his order on page 5 para 16. We note that the year under consideration being an unabated assessment which has attained finality on the date of search and therefore no addition could be made in absence of any incriminating material or evidence as has been held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd (374 ITR 645)(Bom). This fact is also discussed ,corroborated and proved during the assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act and the only addition made was on account of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. When DR was specifically asked as to how the action of the PCIT is just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sturbed the assessment order finalised on 29.12.2000 relating to s. 80HHC deduction and consequently the CIT could not have invoked jurisdiction u/s 263. Moreover, since the AO had made addition on account of undisclosed income at Rs. 89 lakhs in the s. 153A assessment order, there was no question of computing book profits u/s 115 JA. When the CIT (A) deleted the addition without any direction to compute the book profits, the AO was bound to modify the assessment order as directed by the CIT (A). Therefore, no fault could be found with the AO in giving effect to the order of the CIT (A). Consequently, the CIT could not invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 on the ground that the assessment u/s 153A was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs conducted under section 132(1) can be made in the hands of an assessee, had been approved by the Jurisdictional High Court. Thus, in view of settled position of law, the Assessing Officer remaining within the four parameters of law having passed the assessment order under section 153A read with section 143(3), dated, 27-3-2015, the said assessment cannot be faulted with and held to be 'erroneous'. Thus, now when the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not found to be 'erroneous', therefore, the Principal Commissioner had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and revised the order in exercise of the powers vested with him under section 263. Thus, the order passed by the Principal Commissioner under section 263 is se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
