9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020, the period of filing appeal during the COVID- 19 pandemic is to be excluded for the purpose of counting the limitation period. In view of this, the appeal is treated as filed within the limitation period. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the invalid exercise of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by Ld. PCIT in respect of those issues which were already examined and enquired by the AO during the assessment proceedings. 4. Facts in brief are that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for limited scrutiny on three issues as under: i) Large Agricultural Income ii) Unsec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee the explanation on these issues and framed the assessment after accepting the pleas of the assessee by taking a plausible and possible view on all these issues. The Ld. A.R referred to notice dated 27.02.2017 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act where he pointed out in para 4,5 and 6 that the AO has called upon the assessee to furnish accounts and documents pertaining to these points. The Ld. A.R. submitted in the meantime the AO was changed and the new incumbent issued another notice u/s 142(1) dated 30.08.2017 copy of which is filed at page no. 3 of PB wherein he has specifically called for the details from the assesseeparticularly in para no. 12,13 and 14. The assessee submitted all these details and the assessee the reply to the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nders and after taking into account the replies received in response thereto the AO accepted the contentions of the assessee and did not make any addition. The Ld. A.R. also contended that the Ld. PCIT has not recorded any independent findings to justify the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and therefore the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act was exercised invalidly. In defense of his arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the two decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court at Calcutta in the case of PCIT-4, Kolkata vs. M/s Bengal United Credit Belani Housing Ltd. in ITAT/188/2018 (IA No.: GA/1/2018 (Old No. GA/1412/2018) ITAT/188/2018 (IA No.: GA/1/2018 (Old No. GA/1414/2018) dated 6.4.2022 and in the case of PCIT-1, Kolkat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the Ld. PCIT that the AO has not examined the issues and no notices u/s 133(6) were issued to the lenders is wrong and against the facts on record. We also note that the Ld. PCIT has failed to demonstrate as to how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as no relevant findings has not recorded by the Ld. PCIT showing that the assessment framed is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We have perused the decisions relied by the A.R and observe that the case of the issue is squarely covered by the said decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court cited supra. The Hon'ble High Court in both the above decisions has held that the Ld. PCIT has to record reasons justifyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
