9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y High Court noted that the re-assessment proceedings were in relation to a particular grounds and subsequent thereto of passing of the re-assessment and exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 with reference to the issues, which did not form subject of re-opening of assessment cannot be exercised. The order of revision passed in the present case, on issues which did not form subject of re-opening of the assessment or order of reassessment, cannot be upheld. Therefore the revisionary proceedings exercised by the CIT is not correct. Hence, the said order of CIT is set aside. A.Y. 2011-12 - exercise of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 by CIT - document found from the residential premises of Shri Anant Keshav Rajegaonkar wherein the transaction totaling to ₹ 2.98 crore is mentioned - HELD THAT:- It may be pointed out that the transaction relates to number of years and we have already referred to the details in the paras above. The first year was A.Y. 2006-07 wherein the amount mentioned on the document was ₹ 19 lakh. We have already held the exercise of jurisdiction by the CIT u/s 263 to be not in accordance with the law in the paras above. Now coming to appeal in A.Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, Mumbai erred in holding that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 14.02.2014 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3.1 Subsequently, assessee filed the additional ground which reads as under : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Learned CIT(Central), Nagpur, erred in passing order u/s 263, for considering the revision of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147, dt.14.02.2014, for Asst. Year 2006-07, especially in view of the fact that the impugned proceedings were initiated post search enquiries in case of Suyojit Group, and necessary explanations were offered before DDI(Inv), in connection with documents seized during the search action and necessary inquiries are already made. 4. Similar grounds have been raised in ITA No.799/PUN/2015 for A.Y. 2011-12. 5. First, we shall take up appeal relating to A.Y. 2006-07. 6. Before us, Ld.A.R. submitted that the exercise of revisionary powers in both the assessment years lacks jurisdiction and therefore are bad in law. He submitted that the basis on which assessments were reopened were l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007-08 127.00 2008-09 45.00 2009-10 40.00 2011-12 67.00 TOTAL 298.00 8. However, only in two assessment years, assessments were reopened under section 263 of the Act i.e., for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2011-12. Admittedly, the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2007-08 wherein there is a transaction of ₹ 127 crore has been accepted and no action under section 263 of the Act has been initiated. It may also be clarified herein that the other side transactions in the hands of Anant Keshav Rajegaonkar were also looked into by the Revenue authorities and we are not concerned with the fate of the additions in his hands. 9. The question which arises is the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act against the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, wherein the assessment proceedings were r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ails in respect of those items which form part of reassessment. On items which do not form part of the reassessment, the original assessment continues to hold the field. When the Assessing Officer reopens an assessment on a particular issue, it is open to him to make a reassessment on that issue as well as in respect of other issues which subsequently come to his notice during the course of the proceedings under Section 147. The submission of the Revenue is that by not passing an order of reassessment in respect of other independent issues, the order of the Assessing Officer can be construed to be erroneous and to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning of Section 263. The submission cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The substantive part of Section 147 as well as Explanation 3 enables the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax which he has reason to believe had escaped assessment and other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section. There is nothing on the record of the present case to indicate that there was any other income w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act dt.28.03.2013 to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue where no such order under section 143(3) of the Act has been passed by any of the authorities for A.Y. 2006-07, hence, the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax suffers from infirmity and on this account also the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot stand. 13. Now coming to the appeal in A.Y. 2011-12, which is also against the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act, the reason for exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax is again at the same document which was found from the residential premises of Shri Anant Keshav Rajegaonkar wherein the transaction totaling to ₹ 2.98 crore is mentioned. It may be pointed out that the said transaction relates to number of years and we have already referred to the details in the paras above. The first year was A.Y. 2006-07 wherein the amount mentioned on the document was ₹ 19 lakh. We have already held the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act to be not in accordance with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
