9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of CIT cannot be sustained same is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA. No. 3354/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 27-10-2015 - SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. For The Appellant : Shri Hiro Rai, A.R. For The Respondent : Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R. ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: This appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax - 2, Mumbai, dated 28.03.2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 on following grounds: 1. The Hon ble C.I.T. erred in treating the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) as prejudicial and erroneous to the interest of the revenue and further erred in invoking the provision of section 263. 2. The Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e u/s.14A worked out to ₹ 16,35,646/- in case, said interest expenditure incurred taken into consideration. Therefore, assessment passed by Assessing Officer was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In response to notice u/s.263, assessee filed written submissions inter alia submitting that it is an investor as well as trader in shares. During year, assessee purchased and sold shares from share broker, namely, IL FS Investment Financial Services Ltd. As per terms and conditions, if there was a delay in payment towards the purchase consideration of shares, assessee was required to pay interest for the period of such delay. It was submitted on behalf of assessee that out of interest of ₹ 57,80,070/- deb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d he also filed final accounts as placed on page 3 to 13 of the paper book duly certified and relied upon the written submissions made before CIT dated 21.03.2013 and submitted that CIT was not justified in deleting the order of Assessing Officer. The revision of the order passed u/s.143 and setting aside it by CIT with direction to ITO for re-considering the issue related to disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D in respect of interest expenditure is bad in law. Similarly, same should be quashed. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative supported the order of CIT. 4. After going through rival submissions and material on record, we find that assessee is an individual regularly assessed to tax by concerned Income Tax Officer. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire expenses for building brand capital in nature, revision u/s.263 was held not justified. All details called for were furnished in assessment stage. Revision is not justified on the ground that Assessing Officer has not properly appreciated the facts before him on account of said no application of mind by Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer has appreciated the facts as per facts before him. Improper appreciation of facts by Assessing Officer cannot be held proper ground for holding the order of Assessing Officer erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue under the provisions of Section 263. Provisions of 263 of Act can be invoked. In case of no enquiry on issue by Assessing Officer. The improper or less enquiry cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
