TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erroneous. Therefore, the twin condition as enumerated in section 263 of the Act is not fulfilled in the present case, therefore, the order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT is not sustainable in law, which we set-aside. Thus, the assessee succeeded on the primary submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.241/SRT/2019 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2021 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Bharat Jhaveri CA For the Revenue : Shri H.P.Meena CIT-DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the orders of ld. Principal Commissioner of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he deduction under section 80IA of the Act by₹ 4,37,867/-, thereby balance of ₹ 3,78,098/- was disallowed. In the assessment order dated 28.12.2017 passed under section 28.12.2017 passed under section 147 r.w.s 143(30 of the Act. Subsequently, the assessment order dated 28.12.2017 passed under section 147 r.w.s 143 of the Act was revised by ld. Pr.CIT by exercising his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The ld.PCIT, while revising the assessment order held that total disallowance under section 14A of the Act by following formulae under Rule 8D comes to ₹ 5,25,310/-, the AO disallowed only ₹ 2,35,039/-, thus, the assessment order resulted in under assessment of income of ₹ 2,90,271/-, accordingly, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the twin condition as prescribed under section 263 is not meet out. And in second submission, the ld.AR submits that revision order passed by the ld.Pr.CIT is beyond the prescribed period of limitation as the same was passed after two year from the end of assessment year. The original assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 31.01.2015, the order could be revised within two years from the end of relevant assessment year, and thereby the time limit for revising the assessment order expired on 31.03.2017. The ld.AR for the assessee submits that he is liable to succeed on both the counts. 4. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that once the case of assessee was reopened and on passing the reassessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO has already disallowed ₹ 2,35,039/-, so there is no question for revising the assessment order under section 263 of the Act, being erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. Pr. CIT disregarded the contention of the assessee by taking view that Rule 8D is mandatory in nature from A.Y. 2008-09 and the AO is bound to compute disallowance as per formulae provided under Rule 8D. 7. We have verified the facts from the computation of income and find that the assessee has earned exempt income in the form of dividend income of ₹ 202,377/-. Further the AO while passing the original assessment order has already disallowed Rs. ₹ 2,35,039/ under section 14A. Now, it is settled position under the law that disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
