TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 2010X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration of the claim u/s 35AD has caused prejudice to the interest of revenue, he has remitted the matter to the file of the A.O with a direction to re-do the assessment after examining the claim u/s 35AD in detail. Therefore, according to us, the CIT has failed to fulfil the twin conditions u/s 263 of the Act for making the revision. The Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. G.R. Tangamaligai [ 2002 (10) TMI 73 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that in the absence of any finding that there is loss of revenue, interference u/s 263 is not justified. Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd [ 2012 (3) TMI 227 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that the Commissioner cannot remand the matter to the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion by not accepting the audit objection and defending that the activity of the company is fully covered u/s 35AD, which is not permitted by law.] 3. The jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Pr. CIT-4 wrongly assumed as the A.O. after scrutinizing all the details, making enquiries, proper verification and consideration of the entire material on record had allowed the claim u/s 35ADafter due application of mind. The said stand also gets confirmed from the fact that the Department in response to the audit objection raised by the AG office during Revenue audit has not accepted the audit objection and defended that the activity of the company is fully covered u/s 35AD. 4. For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 63 of the Act and on perusal of the assessment record, he came to the conclusion that the assessee was allowed deduction u/s 35AD of the Act by the AO without proper verification and thus according to the CIT, the Assessment Order has become erroneous in as much as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He accordingly, directed the A.O. to re-do the assessment after examining the claim u/s 35AD in detail and providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee-company to substantiate the claim. Against this order of CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, while reiterating the submissions made before the CIT, submitted that the CIT has initiated the 263 proceedings only on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut as to how the assessment order has caused prejudice to the interest of Revenue and therefore, the twin conditions of section 263 of the Act are not satisfied and the revision order needs to be set-aside. He relied upon the following decisions in support of the above contention: 1. MOIL Ltd vs. CIT [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom.) 2. CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd [2017] 396 ITR 217 (Bom.) 3. CIT vs. Nirav Modi [2016] 390 ITR 292 (Bom.) 4. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd vs. JCIT [2014] 152 ITD 132 5. CIT and Another Vs. Gokuldas Esports, Paprika, Weal Monumertal Memorials [2011] 333 ITR 214 6. CIT vs. G.K. Kabra [1995] 251 ITR 707 (Cal.) 7. Unipro Techno Infrastructure (P) Ltd vs. PCIT (2017) 185 TTJ 205 8. Jeewanlal Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file of the A.O with a direction to re-do the assessment after examining the claim u/s 35AD in detail. Therefore, according to us, the CIT has failed to fulfil the twin conditions u/s 263 of the Act for making the revision. 7. The Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. G.R. Tangamaligai [2003] 259 ITR 129 has held that in the absence of any finding that there is loss of revenue, interference u/s 263 is not justified. Similar view was taken by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Chandigarh in the case of Punjab Wool Syndicate vs. ITO [2012] 17 ITR (T) 439 (Chandigarh). Further, the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal [2010] 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) and also in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
