TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case the element of prejudicial to the interest of revenue element does not come into picture as the relevant inquiries were made by the AO. The decision relied by the Ld. DR that in case of NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. [ 2019 (3) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT] is not applicable in the present case as in that decisions as per the facts of that case Assessee Company - Respondent failed to discharge the onus required under Section 68 AO was justified in adding back the amounts to the Assessee s income. But in the present case, the assessee company has discharged its onus required in respect of high share premium. Thus, order under Section 263 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 2009-10 declaring loss of ₹32,050/- and thereafter revised the return vide filing the same on 29.09.2009 declaring total loss of ₹2,46,55,771/-. The case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 on 30.03.2016 after taking necessary approval. The assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was completed on 13.10.2016 accepting loss of ₹32,050/- by the Assessing Officer. The Pr. CIT vide notice dated 29.01.2019 asked the assessee as to why the assessment order dated 13.10.2016 not erroneous in so far as it is not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. Pr. CIT observed that the assessee-company received share capital of ₹9,00,000/- and share premium to the tune of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer. The Pr. CIT has not commented that the reasoning was not proper. In fact, the revision is on the identical issue in the proceedings u/s 263 itself. But the Pr. CIT has taken second opinion and therefore, the revision u/s 263 is not proper and just. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Nirav Modi 71 Taxman 272. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: Malabar Industrial Co, Ltd v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT v. Lovely Exports Pot. Ltd. (216 CTR 195) (SC), ACIT-1(1) v. M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pot. Ltd. (ITA No.5784/MUM/2011). Commissioner of Income Tax vs P. Mohanakala (SC) 2540 of2007. CIT v. Devi Prasad Khandelwal Co. Ltd. 81 ITR 460 (BombayHC). Poonam Bhotikav/s ITO(I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documentary evidences at the time of reassessment proceedings. Merely not commenting on the evidences in assessment order by the Assessing Officer does not tantamount to non-application or non-verification of documents. The Pr. CIT cannot exercise revisionary power in the decided issue which was specifically reopened on the very same ground and for which the assessee has submitted the details. The revisionary power u/s 263 can be issued/exercised when the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. But in the present case the element of prejudicial to the interest of revenue element does not come into picture as the relevant inquiries were made by the Assessing Officer. The decision relied by the Ld. DR th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
