TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question did not contain the issue raised in section 263 proceedings. Therefore, we hold that the CIT s assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of the Act. Thus, the CIT s order is not sustainable. As we have accepted the assessee s grounds on legality itself, we do not deem it appropriate to deal with the merits involved in this appeal. Assessee s appeal is allowed. - I.T.A.No.1384/Mds/2014 (Assessment year : 2004-05) - - - Dated:- 8-8-2014 - SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] Appellant by : Shri C. Naresh, CA Respondent by : Shri N. Rengaraj, CIT O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll this, the CIT formed an opinion that the regular assessment was erroneous causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue and issued a show cause notice dated 13.3.2014 as under: F.No.136/IOB/263/2013-14 Dated: 13-3-2014 To The Principal Officer M/s Indian Overseas Bank P.B.No.3765, 763, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002 Sir, Sub: Proceedings u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 For the Asst. Year 2004-05 reg (1) Please refer to the above (2) The reassessment in the case of M/s Indian Overseas Bank for the assessment year 2004-05 was completed ul s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 30.12.2011, wherein, the following issues were considered. Surplus arising out of merger I amal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has constituted an error for want of proper enquiry, causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue. Hence, I propose to revise the assessment of your company for assessment year 2004-05 under section 263 of the Income tax Act 1961. You are hereby given an opportunity of representing your case and state your objections, if any, to the proposed action u/ s 263 of the IT Act 1961, either in person or through your authorised representative on 20-03-2014 at 11.30 A.M. You may also file your written submissions if any, on the date of hearing. 5. In reply dated 24.3.2014, the assessee reiterated its consistent practice followed on the issue of depreciation on investments even in preceding assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d an error causing prejudice to the revenue. Mere claim of the assessee does not amount to the AO hi-wing conducted proper and adequate inquiry allowing the claim. The error subsisted from the original assessment and through the reassessment proceedings as well. The Act provides for assessing or reassessing any other income coming to the notice of the AO during the course of reassessment proceedings. Thus, a starring claim of ₹ 72.75 crores in the computation statement was not put to the deserving inquiry and verification during the reassessment proceedings which was part of the record and the computation process. But error persisted and remained even during the reassessment proceedings. Hence the limitation of jurisdiction u/s 263 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 72.75 crores and examining them in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal. 6. We have heard both parties and perused the case file. Relevant facts of the case already stand narrated in the preceding paragraphs. The Assessing Officer had framed regular assessment on 28.12.2006, issued reopening notice on 22.3.2011 on two grounds (supra) and passed re-assessment order on 30.12.2011. In reopening, there was no issue raised about investments written off as involved in the present 263 proceedings. The CIT issued 263 show cause notice on 13.3.2014. It transpires that the CIT s show cause notice is not within two years from assessment order dated 28.12.2006. It does not satisfy the basic con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
