9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessment year 2015-16 and directed the AO to frame assessment order afresh. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm engaged in retail business of pharmaceuticals, drugs and medicines in PGI Complex, filed its return of income for the assessment year consideration declaring total income of Rs. 4,05,410/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny and the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. In response to the said notices, the authorized representative of the assessee attended the proceedings and filed the details called for and also discussed the case from time to time. The assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 31,94,193/- on account of rent paid to PGI. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT. 3. The appellant/assessee has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds: - 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT has exceeded legislative jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act thus order passed is bad in law. 2. That the Ld. CIT has erred in passing order under Section 263 in the absence of any erroneous position prejudicial to the interest of revenue in the original Assessment order passed by Ld. ITO under Section 143(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT has erred in substituting an alternative view as against the firm view adopted by the Ld. ITO at the time of original assessment under Section 143(3) 4. That the Ld. CIT has erred in concludi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation period due to countrywide lock down and restrictions imposed in the wake of COVID-19. Therefore, in our considered view, the reasons stated by the appellant/assessee are sufficient to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. Hence, we allowed the application filed by the assessee and condoned the delay. Accordingly, we allowed the Ld. Counsel to argue the appeal on merit. 7. The Ld. counsel submitted before us that in this case AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act after making certain additions. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee deleted the additions made by the AO. Thereafter the assessee received notice u/s 263 of the Act from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nducting verification of the documents submitted to justify the same. The Ld. counsel relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Dhanna Ready & Company 2018 100 taxmann.com 358 (SC), judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirav Modi vs. CIT 201971 taxmann.com272 (Bom), judgments of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishna Capbox 2015 60 taxmann.com 243 (All) and Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd 2019 71 taxmann.com 170 (All), judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajshyama Constructions (P) Ltd 2012 20 taxmann.com 251(Del) and the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of CIT vs. Pawan Kumar 2015 ITAT (Chandigarh) 62. Taxmann. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment and directing a fresh assessment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. So, as per the settled law, in order to exercise jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, the CIT has to be satisfied of twin conditions that the order sought to be revised is erroneous and that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indo German Fabs IT Appeal No 248 of 2012 has inter alia held that under section 263 the CIT has power to examine an assessment order to ascertain as to whether it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, but does not confer jurisdiction to substitute his opinion for the opinion of the AO. Therefore, u/s 263 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possible view is not justified. 11. In the case of CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Allahabad has held that where the assessing officer passes assessment order after raising queries from the assessee, mere non discussion or non-mention thereof in assessment order could not lead to the assumption that the AO did not apply his mind. Invoking of revisional jurisdictional on the said ground was held unjustified. 12. In the light of the facts of the case and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Courts discussed above, we hold that the impugned order is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Courts discussed above. Since the AO had passed the assessment order after making prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
