9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, Surat (For short the Tribunal") in MA No. 18/SRT/2023 arising out of ITA No. 94/SRT/2022 for Assessment Year 2017-2018. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its revised return of income for AY 2017-2018 on 26.11.2018 declaring loss of Rs. 9,38,820/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS. Assessment Order under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short "the Act") was passed on 10.12.2019 accepting the total loss of Rs. 9,38,820/-. 4. Thereafter, PCIT Valsad passed order dated 27.03.2022 under section 263 of the Act holding that whole cash deposit of Rs. 15,50,000/- which remained unexplained should have been added under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22 allowed the appeal of the assessee by accepting the case of the assessee that the seized cash of Rs. 15.50 lakh on 19.06.2013 was already added in the hands of the Director of assessee in assessment order for AY 2014-2015 passed under section 143 (3) of the Act dated 28.03.2016. 8. Thereafter Revenue filed Misc. application No. 18/SRT/2023 before the Tribunal to recall the records and modify and rectify the order passed in 9. The Tribunal dismissed the Misc. Application filed by the Revenue vide order dated 21.08.2023 finding no merit in the application. 10. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner department has preferred the present petition. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Sanghani for the petitioner submitted that the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2013 as the said amount was never returned to the respondent assessee company. 13. The Tribunal while dismissing the Misc. Application has held as under: "4. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the record carefully including the order of Tribunal dated 21/11/2022. We find that in the present appeal, the assessee has challenged the validity of order under Section 263 passed by the ld. Pr. CIT, Valsad. The core issue while adjudicating appeal was, if the twin condition of Section 263 whether the assessment order passed by assessing officer was erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We find that while adjudicating the appeal of assessee, we have already took a view that the order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the assessee company that amount of Rs. 15.50 lakh belonged to it was not accepted by the Income Tax department and therefore, the entry passed by the assessee company in the books of accounts reducing the cash balance was reversed because of the assessment order passed in the case of the Director. 15. The Tribunal therefore, was justified in holding that order the passed by the Assessing Officer was not at all prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the amount of Rs. 15.50 lakhs was already taxed in the hands of individual Director. 16. In such facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no error in dismissing Misc. Application filed by the Revenue in absence of any mistake apparent in the appellate order passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
