9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has not addressed any arguments about the remaining points on account of which also Ld. PCIT held that the order of the Assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Ld. Counsel though orally submitted that the Ld. PCIT did not find any error in respect of point d raised by him in the impugned order. May it be so, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has not addressed any arguments regarding point b , point c and point e before us. We have been conveyed that even in the set aside proceedings, the assessee could not convince the Assessing officer apart from point a , regarding point b and point c also as mentioned in the impugned order of the PCIT. From the above discussion what emerges is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. PCIT in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, whereby, he has set aside the assessment order dated 28.2.2016 of the Assessing officer passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for de novo assessment. 3. A perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT passed u/s 263 of the Act reveals that the Ld. PCIT noticed the following errors / discrepancies in the order of the Assessing officer: a. Deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was allowed to you in respect of Unit -II where Dissolved Acetylene Gas was being produced which falls under the negative List of Schedule XIII of the Income tax Act, l961. The assessment order was passed on 28.12.2016. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of Unit I (IU-II), you had shown net profit of ₹ 45,97,055/- on which deduction @ 25% was claimed at ₹ 11,49,264/-. Nevertheless, the said claim was rejected by the A.O., by holding that it is splitting up/reconstruction of existing business i.e. Unit-I(IU-I) instead of new industrial undertaking but still deduction was allowed to you; whereas, the department is already in appeal in ITAT against allowance of the same by CIT(A) for A.Y. 2012- 13. e. On perusal of profit Loss account in respect of Unit I(IU-II) in which you had claimed deduction @ 25% u/s 80IC, expenses on account of electricity and Water has been claimed at ₹ 82,70,484/-, whereas only ₹ 1,66,020/- (there is no schedule or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to satisfactorily explain the issues raised by the Ld. PCIT, hence, the order passed by the Assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He also observed that the Assessing officer even while calculating the tax had wrongly applied the provisions of section 115JC of the I.T. Act, whereas, the said section was not applicable to the assessee being an individual. He, therefore, set aside the order of the Assessing officer and directed the Assessing officer to frame the assessment afresh in accordance with law after giving due and reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present his case. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee has come in appeal before us. The argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of point d raised by him in the impugned order. May it be so, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has not addressed any arguments regarding point b , point c and point e before us. We have been conveyed that even in the set aside proceedings, the assessee could not convince the Assessing officer apart from point a , regarding point b and point c also as mentioned in the impugned order of the PCIT. From the above discussion what emerges is that there were certain errors in the order of the Assessing officer passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and because of those errors, the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Hence, the said order being erroneous was also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Though th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
