9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 558 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - period of limitation - order u/s. 153A/143(3) held by the Pr. CIT to be erroneous - HELD THAT - No addition in absence of any incriminating material can be made in respect of unabated assessment of the assessee, we are of a strong conviction that now when the A.O could not have made an addition on the basis of which his order u/s. 153A/143(3) of the Act had been held by the Pr. CIT to be erroneous, therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, on the said count, being bad in law is liable to be vitiated. As relying on Alagendran Finance Ltd. 007 (7) TMI 304 - SUPREME COURT Pr. CIT in the case of the present assessee before us was only vested with the jurisdiction to have revised the reassessment order that was passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act dated 23.12.2018. As the aforesaid order u/s. 143(3)/147 dated 23.12.2018 could have been revised u/s. 263 latest by 31.03.2021, which had lapsed way back, therefore, even the said remedy would not be available with the Pr. CIT. Pr. CIT had clearly exceeded his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and had wrongly revised the order passed by the A.O u/s. 153A/143(3) - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which arose from the order passed by the Assessing Officer under sections 153A/143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16. Controversy: The main issue in the appeal is the validity of the order passed by the Pr. CIT under section 263, setting aside the assessment order by the AO and directing a fresh assessment after proper inquiries. Details of the Judgment: The original assessment was conducted under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, determining the income at Rs. 42,60,182. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation was carried out, leading to a reassessment by the AO under section 153A/143(3) for the same income. The Pr. CIT found deficiencies in the AO's assessment process, particularly regarding the verification of issues related to the assessee's claim for deduction under section 54F. Consequently, the Pr. CIT set aside the assessment order, directing a fresh assessment with proper inquiries. Legal Analysis: The Tribunal observed that no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings, and the income was assessed the same as the original assessment. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal held that no addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material for unabated assessments. The Tribunal further emphasized that the Pr. CIT exceeded his jurisdiction under section 263 by revising the AO's order without proper grounds. Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the Pr. CIT's order under section 263 and restoring the AO's assessment order under sections 153A/143(3) for the assessment year 2015-16.
|
