TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very query raised in the notice issued u/s 263. As submitted by CIT DR, this issue relating to the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D was not at all examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and there is nothing brought on record on behalf of the assessee-company to show that any enquiry whatsoever was made by the AO on this issue during the course of assessment proceedings. As held in the case of CIT vs Maithan International [ 2015 (4) TMI 479 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] the role of the Assessing Officer is that of an investigator as well as adjudicator and where relevant enquiry was not undertaken before allowing the claim of the assessee, the order become erroneous as well as prejudicial to the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T and on such examination, he noted that there was an under assessment on the following issues: i. ₹ 51,31,012/- on account of interest income ii. ₹ 7,31,694/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D iii. ₹ 2,07,87,192/- and ₹ 18,13,075/- on account of interest and brokerage respectively 3. The Ld. Pr. CIT accordingly issued a notice u/s 263 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) should not be revised by treating it as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. There was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the said notice issued u/s 263 as well as the further notices issued by the Ld. Pr. CIT fixing the hearing from time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed on behalf of the assessee-company before the Ld. Pr. CIT: With reference to your notice No. PCIT, Kol-5/263/M/s. Sunshine Tracon Pvt. Ltd./2017-18 dated 17.01.2019 we would like to state that Audit objection was raised reply was filed accordingly through our authorized representative Mr. Sushil Kumar Purohit, we are once again submitting the details as follows: i. On perusal of the assessment records it is seen that the interest income declared by you under Revenue from operation is ₹ 9,19,61,447/- whereas as per our record you have received ₹ 9,70,92,459/- towards interest on which TDS of ₹ 97,09,246/- was deducted. Hence, there is an under assessment to the tune of ₹ 51,31,012/- (9,70,92,459 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was gone through. Non explanation was furnished in reply to the queries raised vide the show cause instead a bad and cryptic remark was made by the assessee in answer to every query that break up along with explanation were enclosed whereas no such submission or break up was furnished. In the circumstances as stated above, it is statutorily preserved that the assessee had nothing to say to contradict the issues raised vide the show cause dated 14.11.2018 on other words, the assessee admitted the lapses in the order of the Assessing Officer dated 06.12.2016. 6. For the reasons given above, the Ld. Pr. CIT set aside the order passed by the AO dated 06.12.2016 u/s 143(3) vide his impugned order dated 25.03.2019 passed u/s 263 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He also submitted that in the written submission filed before the Ld. Pr. CIT during the course of proceedings u/s 263, this material aspect of the matter relevant to the issue was specifically pointed out on behalf of the assessee-company, but without taking into consideration the same and without giving any finding on the submission made on behalf of the assessee-company, the Ld. Pr. CIT set aside the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) on this issue with the direction to decide the same afresh. He contended that there was thus no error in the order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) in not making any disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D as alleged by the Ld. Pr. CIT in his impugned order passed u/s 263 calling for any revision. 8. The Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arately enclosed by the assessee-company along with the written submission filed before the Ld. Pr. CIT. However, as clearly noted by the Ld. Pr. CIT in his impugned order, no such note or break-up was furnished by the assessee-company along with the written submission. As submitted by the Ld. CIT DR, this issue relating to the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D was not at all examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and there is nothing brought on record on behalf of the assesseecompany to show that any enquiry whatsoever was made by the AO on this issue during the course of assessment proceedings. As held by the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Maithan International (2015) 56 taxma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
