TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant statute. The reasoning of the ld. PCIT is against the settled position of law that the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court or the Hon ble Supreme Court always overrides the Circular issued by the CBDT (supra). The CBDT is not competent to pronounce upon any point of law. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the law declared by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India and the Jurisdictional High Courts. The law declared by the Hon ble Supreme Court is binding on the all the authorities u/s 141 of the Constitution of India. The Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise the powers vested u/s 263 of the Act cannot do something, what the Assessing Officer himself cannot do. Thus, the very premises on which revision w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are allowable. Appellant prays to cancel the Order passed by Pr. CIT. 3. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend and / or withdraw the Ground/s as the occasion may demand during appellate proceedings. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under :- The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of civil contractor. The return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed electronically on 24.09.2015 declaring total income of ₹ 4,20,24,940/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14, Pune ( the Assessing Officer ) vide order dated 27.09.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act at a t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant, the ld. PCIT was of the opinion that the though the issue was squarely covered in favour of the appellant company, however, the same cannot be allowed as deduction in view of the CBDT Circular No.22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 and the fact that the Department is in appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court against the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of GhatgePatil Transports Ltd. (supra), as the Assessing Officer had failed to examine the issue of allowability of expenditure during the course of assessment proceedings, therefore, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set-aside the assessment order with a direction to re-do the assessment on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of GhatgePatil Transports Ltd. (supra), decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of AIMIC Limited (supra) and also the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Cement Limited (supra). 10. The only ground on which the ld. PCIT seeks to revise the assessment order is that the Assessing Officer had not followed the CBDT Circular No.22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 which mandates the Assessing Officer to disallow the belated employee s contribution to PF and ESIC funds beyond the due dates under relevant statute. The reasoning of the ld. PCIT is against the settled position of law that the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court or the Hon ble Supreme Court always overrides the Circular issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
