9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1880 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C - Assessment u/s 153A of the Act after obtaining approval of Additional CIT under section 153D - HELD THAT - The assessment in the present case has been completed by the Assessing Officer by passing order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act after taking the approval of JCIT, Central Range, Nashik and following the ratio laid down in Rasiklal M. Dhariwal (HUF) Vs. CIT 2017 (1) TMI 260 - ITAT PUNE and M/s. B.U. Bhandari Schemes Vs. Pr.CIT 2018 (11) TMI 1873 - ITAT PUNE we hold that exercise of revisionary powers by the Commissioner is both incorrect and invalid in law. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are thus, allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Proper enquiries and verification of seized/impounded material. 3. Validity of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act. 4. Independent application of mind by the Commissioner. 5. Approval under section 153D. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the order passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The assessee challenged the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous cases, such as Rasiklal M. Dhariwal (HUF) Vs. CIT and M/s. B.U. Bhandari Schemes Vs. Pr.CIT. The Tribunal held that once the assessment order is passed with the prior approval of the Additional CIT under section 153D, the Commissioner cannot invoke revisionary powers under section 263. Consequently, the order passed by the Commissioner was deemed invalid and bad in law. 2. Proper enquiries and verification of seized/impounded material: The Commissioner observed that the Assessing Officer had not carried out requisite enquiries and verification regarding the expenditure claims made by the assessee. However, the Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed after obtaining the necessary approval from the JCIT, Central Range, Nashik. It was established that the assessment was completed following proper procedures, and thus, the revisionary powers exercised by the Commissioner were invalid. 3. Validity of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act: The Tribunal reiterated that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C, after obtaining the approval of the JCIT, cannot be revised by the Commissioner under section 263. This was consistent with the decisions in previous cases like Rasiklal M. Dhariwal (HUF) Vs. CIT and B.U. Bhandari Schemes Vs. Pr.CIT. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, holding that the revisionary powers exercised by the Commissioner were incorrect and invalid in law. 4. Independent application of mind by the Commissioner: The assessee argued that the order passed under section 263 lacked independent application of mind by the Commissioner and was solely based on the proposal of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the Commissioner’s actions were not independently justified and were based on prior approvals and existing procedures. 5. Approval under section 153D: The Tribunal emphasized that the assessment order was passed with the prior approval of the JCIT under section 153D. This approval process was a significant factor in determining the validity of the Commissioner’s revisionary powers. As the assessment order had been approved under section 153D, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner’s exercise of revisionary powers under section 263 was invalid. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 596, 597 & 599/PUN/2015, declaring the Commissioner’s revisionary powers under section 263 as invalid and incorrect in law. The appeal in ITA No. 598/PUN/2015 was dismissed as not pressed. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with previous judgments, ensuring that assessment orders approved under section 153D could not be revised under section 263.
|
