9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us but also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, the assessment order passed for A.Y. 2008-09 is set aside with a direction to the A.O. to re-do the same afresh, after examining the details of interest payment of ₹ 9,24,100 and after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee”. From the above directions of the Pr. CIT, it is clear that the direction to A.O was to re-do the assessment afresh after considering the fresh findings of the Pr. CIT. In our considered view, the A.O has misunderstood the direction of the Pr. CIT and passed the consequential order after considering only the cash payment towards interest. A.O should have passed the consequential order afresh. If the intention of Pr. CIT is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009 admitting an income of ₹ 15,910. There was a search and seizure operation conducted under section 132 of the Act at the residential premises of Sri Akkati Krishna Reddy. During the search and seizure proceedings, certain incriminating material was found and seized relating to the assessee. Subsequently, a notice under section 153C of the Act was issued. In response to the said notice, assessee filed its return of income on 30.08.2013 admitting income of ₹ 5,15,905. A.O. completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153C by disallowing an amount of ₹ 18 lakhs under section 40A(3) and an amount of ₹ 64,17,000 as unexplained expenditure. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals). Before the learned CIT (Appeals), the appellant contested the additions made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 18 lakhs and ₹ 64,17,000/-. The grounds of appeal agitated before the CIT (Appeals) are reproduced hereunder : 1. The order of the Assessing officer is erroneous, unjust and contrary to the facts of the case and in law. 2. The A.O. erred in disallowing ₹ 18,00,000 by applying the provisions of Sec.40A(3) of the I.T. Act. 3. The A.O. erred in holding that there was any unexplained payment which amounted to ₹ 46,00,000 and further erred in treating the same as the income of the appellant. 4. The A.O. erred in treating an amount of ₹ 18,70,000 being the cost of construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... why the order made by the Assessing Officer should not be revised u/s.263 of the I.T.Act. For this purpose, the case is posted for hearing on 25.08.2015 at 11.30 a.m. You may appear either in person on the said date at my office or through your authorised representative and furnish your explanation in writing. It can be seen from the show cause letter that the learned Principal CIT is of the view that there was an error in the assessment as the Assessing officer did not consider an amount of ₹ 9,24,100 paid as interest. The Principal CIT clearly indicated that the error is with regard to an item of payment of interest and that he proposed to revise the order to facilitate the Assessing Officer to make enquiry and if required, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 9,24,100. The Assessing Officer followed the directions of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax contained in the order passed u/s.263 and limited the scope of assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 to the amount of ₹ 9,24,100. He did neither discuss about the other additions nor discussed about the additions made in the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C dated 21.3.2014. It was further submitted by the Learned Authorised Representative for the assessee that according to the provisions of Sec.263, the CIT may pass an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. The learned Principal CIT, while passing the order u/s.263, did not cancel the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by the Pr. CIT. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and material on record. The assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A) which was dismissed as infructuous considering the fact that the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C was set aside by the Pr. CIT as the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. As per the direction of the Pr. CIT the assessment has to be done afresh with proper opportunity to the assessee. The above direction was given under section 263 order on 15.09.2015. Considering the above development, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on 29.01.2016. We have noticed that A.O. has interpreted the direction of the Pr. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
