9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 983 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - validity of reopening of the assessment - HELD THAT - For deciding about the validity of reopening of the assessment this aspect was open before CIT (A) that reopening was made for the allegation of accommodation entry of 65 lacs from Sri Aseem Kumar Gupta although no addition of 65 lacs was made by the AO in the assessment order passed u/s 147 rws 143 (3) of I. T. Act on 11.03.2013 and that order was under challenge before CIT (A) in that appeal which was pending before CIT (A) when the notice was issued u/s 263 by PCIT and the impugned order was passed by him. In our considered opinion under these facts this Judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of CWT vs. Sampathmal Chordia 2001 (11) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT is applicable and respectfully following the same we hold that learned PCIT had no jurisdiction u/s 263 in the facts of the present case and hence we set aside the impugned order passed by PCIT u/s 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before CIT (A). 2. Jurisdiction of PCIT to pass the order under section 263. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal Before CIT (A): The assessee filed an appeal against the order of CIT (A) III, Bengaluru, dated 27.08.2014, for the assessment year 2005-06. The primary grievance was the CIT (A)'s refusal to condone a delay of 282 days in filing the appeal. The assessee explained the delay by stating that they were under the bona fide belief that the appeal filed regarding an earlier assessment order dated 23.06.2008 would also cover the order passed under section 153C on 29.12.2009. However, upon receiving advice from their AR after another order under section 147 was passed on 11.03.2013, they realized the necessity to file a separate appeal against the order dated 29.12.2009, which led to the delayed filing on 08.11.2013. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and, in the interest of justice, decided to condone the delay. They relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., which emphasizes a liberal approach towards condonation of delay, stating that "normally, the delay should be condoned" to ensure substantial justice. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT (A) for a decision on merit after providing an adequate opportunity for both sides to be heard. 2. Jurisdiction of PCIT to Pass the Order Under Section 263: The second appeal concerned the jurisdiction of the PCIT to pass an order under section 263. The assessee argued that the PCIT's order was without jurisdiction because the subject matter of the revision was already under appeal before the CIT (A). The PCIT had issued a notice under section 263 on 19.09.2014, concerning accommodation entries of ?65 Lakhs provided by an individual. The assessee pointed out that the issue of accommodation entries was already part of the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment under section 147, and an addition of ?10 Lakhs was made in the assessment order dated 11.03.2013. This assessment order was under appeal before the CIT (A) when the notice under section 263 was issued. The Tribunal reviewed the relevant documents and found that the CIT (A) had indeed considered the issue of accommodation entries in their order, thereby confirming that the matter was under appellate consideration at the time of the PCIT's notice. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CWT vs. Sampathmal Chordia, which held that revisional jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be exercised in a manner that deprives the appellate authority of its power to examine the correctness of the order under appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the PCIT had no jurisdiction under section 263 in this case and set aside the impugned order passed by the PCIT. Conclusion: - The appeal regarding the condonation of delay in filing before CIT (A) was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT (A) for a decision on merit. - The appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the PCIT under section 263 was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
|
