9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) whereas he has not mentioned anywhere in the order the deficiency of the AO as envisaged in Explanation 2(c). 3. That the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law and in fact by passing an order under section 263 particularly when the issue was claiming of excess deduction u/c 80IC and it was proved beyond doubt that no excess claim was made as it was a case of substantial expansion. 4. That the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law and in fact by passing an order under section 263 which was not related with the issues raised in the show cause notice for initiate the proceedings under section 263. 5. That the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law and in fact by forming opinion that order passed by AO is erroneous and at the same time he sets aside the order which means he is not sure whether order passed by AO is erroneous. 6. That the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law and in fact by particularly when the issue is set aside to the AO to judge whether it is erroneous and at the same time he opined that order passed by AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest to the revenue. 7. That the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B for the assessment year 2013-14 for your kind perusal records. Page number 1 to 6. 4. We wish to draw your kind attention on the relevant page number 5 in which it was mentioned that there was a substantial expansion. The date of substantial expansion mentioned in 10CCB was 13.02.2012. Relevant financial year 2011-12 and the assessment year was 2012-13. 5. The year of substantial expansion the assessee company had filed 10CCB and other related documents relating to substantial expansion for the assessment year 2012-13. The necessary evidence is page number 7 & 8. 6. We also enclose 10CCB for the assessment year 2012-13 being the initial year of substantial expansion for your kind perusal records. Page numbers 9 to 14. 7. Assessment year 2013-14 is the 2nd year of substantial expansion. First year was 2012-13. 8. In the initial year of substantial expansion (AY 2012-13), the learned assessing officer had accepted the substantial expansion and passed the order under 143(3) after giving the 100% deduction. The same is not in dispute. 9. We also enclose the assessment order of 2012-13 for your kind perusal and records. Page Number 15 to 19. 10. The learned assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication of mind or order showing apparent error of reasoning of the order where the AO simply accepts where the assessee stated in his return of income and fails to make the enquiries which are called for in the facts and circumstances of the case will also call for intervention u/s 263 of the Act by the CIT/Pr. CIT. It is a trite law that the disclosure of facts by the assessee in the return of income and/or in the course of assessment proceedings cannot give immunity from revisional jurisdiction of the CIT/PR. CIT u/s 263. In this context, it may be mentioned here that in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I, Kolkata vs. Maithan International, it was held by Calcutta High Court [2015] 56 taxmann.com 283 (Calcutta) that "It is not the law that the Assessing Officer occupying the position of an investigator and adjudicator can discharge his function by perfunctory or inadequate investigation. Such a course is bound to result in erroneous and prejudicial too and therefore revisable. Investigation should always be faithful and fruitful. Unless all fruitful areas or enquiry are pursued the enquiry cannot be said to have been faithfully conducted." The Hon'ble Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has failed to satisfy the ld. PCIT in support of its claim, therefore, the ld. PCIT held that the impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2016 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and thus he directed the ld. AO pass fresh assessment order after considering the observation made in the impugned order of the ld. PCIT. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. Out of which several grounds were general and consequential in nature. The main grievance of the assessee in its grounds of appeal are challenging the invocation of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and also challenging the direction issued by the ld. PCIT for setting aside the assessment order framed by the ld. AO. 5. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR appeared before us and submitted that the order passed by the ld. PCIT is bad in law and relevant claim of the assessee in respect of deduction u/s 80IC amounting to Rs. 1,39,56,248.58/- was duly examined by the ld. AO during the assessment proceeding. Therefore, in the present case, there is no need to examine the case afresh by the AO in terms of revisionary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
