9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 263. 3. For that the Ld. Principal CIT erred in exercising the power of revision for the purpose of directing the A.O', to hold another investigation when the A.O. had complied with the directions of the predecessor Principal CIT, Kolkata - 14, Kolkata in the preceding order u/s 263 passed on 20.03,2019. 4. For that the Ld. Principal CIT ought to have appreciated that requisite enquiries were done by the A.O. while passing order u/s. 263/143(3) dated 23.12.2019, thereby ousting jurisdiction to invoke section 263 once again. 5. (a) For that the Ld. Principal CIT passing the impugned order erred in holding that there was difference of loan, amount of Rs. 11,11,00,000/- between the details as per partywise brokerage bill details and the fond arranged by the brokers and, as such, the said amount was required to be treated as unexplained cash credit. (b) For that the Ld. POT erred in holding that there was error made by the A.O. in the computation part of the assessment order dated 23.12.2019 to the tune of Rs.27,000/-. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal. 3. In the various grounds of appeal, the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order passed by the AO dated 23.12.2019 u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted before the Bench that the exercise of jurisdiction by Ld. PCIT is hopelessly barred by limitation as per the provision of Section 263(2) of the Act on the ground that the order was passed in the first round u/s 143(3)/263 of the Act dated 23.12.2019 which was passed pursuant to the directions by the Ld. PCIT in the order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 20.03.2019. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the said exercise of revisionary power by the ld. PCIT is invalid and bad in law as the AO has very limited power to examine the issues in the set aside proceedings to the extent as directed by the LD. PCIT and does not have the power to exercise the unfettered jurisdiction to make the additions. The Ld. A.R. in defense of his arguments relied on the series of decisions emphasizing the issue that the AO can exercise power in the set aside proceedings/ remand proceedings only to the extent as directed by the Ld. PCIT/authorities concerned in its order. The Ld. A.R relied on the series of decisions namely in defense of his arguments: i) Basudeo Prasad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e additions accordingly. We find that the AO has elaborately discussed the issue in para 4 to 16 of the order dated 23.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. Therefore we are of that view the power has invalidly been exercised by Ld. PCIT to set aside the order framed u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act dated 23.12.2019 which has been validly passed by the AO and is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We have perused several decisions as cited before us which stated above. In the case of Basudeo Prasad Agarwalla (supra) the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that if the order of remand is open and the authorities concerned, after remand, can exercise the jurisdiction in accordance with law, there is nothing for the court to regulate such action; but at the same time, this court observes that if the scope of remand is limited, after remand, the authorities cannot enlarge the same and make an assessment beyond the scope of the order of remand. The Court observed that the authorities concerned, after remand, are certainly entitled to proceed in accordance with law, but in a limited manner,if there is any order of the appellate authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of provisions of Section 263(2) of the Act. Considering the facts of the case vis a vis the and the provisions of section 263(2) of the Act and also the citations made by the ld. Counsel before us, we are of the considered view that it is the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act which could be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue but not the assessment as framed in the set aside proceedings pursuant to ld. PCIT directions in the first round. In our opinion, the limitation runs from the end of the financial year in which the original assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was framed, i.e. 26.12.2016 and the limitation period expired on 31.03.2019, whereas the ld. PCIT has set aside and revised the assessment order as framed u/s section 143(3) read with section 263 dated 23.12.2019 and consequently the revisionary jurisdiction of the ld. PCIT cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee finds force from the decision in the case of CIT -vs.- Alagendran Finance Limited (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the period of limitation has to run from the date of order of assessment and not from the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ject matter of the reassessment. Consequently, Explanation 3 to section 147 would not alter that position. Explanation 3 only enables the Assessing Officer, once an assessment is reopened, to assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, even an issue in respect of which no reasons were indicated in the notice under section 148(2). This, however, will not obviate the bar of limitation under section 263(2). The invocation of the jurisdiction under section 263(2) was barred by limitation". 9. In the instant case before us also the issue on which the ld. PCIT proposed the revision of order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 23.12.2019, issue which was directed by the ld PCIT in the order u/s 263 of the Act dated 23.03.2022 was not the subject matter of revisionary proceedings in the first round. Therefore, the period of limitation has to run from the date of assessment as framed under section 143(3) dated 26.12.2016 i.e. from the end of financial year 31.3.2017. In view of this, we incline to hold that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the ld. PCIT is hopelessly barred by limitation. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Courts as discussed herein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
