9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar-marked and spelled out by the statute. Thus, the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the ld PCIT is not in accordance to law therefore, order passed by the ld PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is not sustainable in law. - ITA No. 1161/Kol/2019 - - - Dated:- 8-11-2019 - SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM AND DR. A.L. SAINI, AM For the Appellant : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR ORDER Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2015-16, is directed against the order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) dated 18.03.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. That the order passed by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Kolkata under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 setting aside the assessment order dated 27th November, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 45(3), Kolkata under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is without jurisdiction, against law and facts of the case and therefore illegal and is liable to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (v).Proportionate interest on advances for flat withdrawn by Proprietor of ₹ 1,46,306/- (vi). Interest on Income Tax Refund of ₹ 2,250/- The ld PCIT observed that the above mentioned expenses and non-deduction of TDS were not verified at the time ofassessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, therefore, it was considered by the ld PCIT that the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 27/11/2017 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 10/09/2018 was issued to the assessee. 4. In response, the assessee had submitted a written submission before ld PCIT, along with enclosures on 05/11/2018, which is reproduced below: In this case the return of income filed by me was selected for scrutiny to examine the alleged profit allegedly shown by me. During the course of Assessment Proceedings the assessing officernotice under section 142(1) of the Act and made specific query to submit explanation for alleged low profit in the business. I had furnished detailed explanation supported by documents and evidences to the assessing officer vide my letter dated 12.09.2017. This fact has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Loan Creditors Interest TDS Remarks 1 Hira Devi Kejriwal 9,095 Nil 15G/15H Filed 2 Kailash Prasad Ghiriya 1,69,928 Nil 15G/15H Filed 3 Krishna Devi Ghiriya 1,89,284 Nil 15G/15H Filed 4 Ramesh Kumar Munka 2,28,828 Nil 15G/15H Filed 5 Ujjwaj Kejriwal 19,575 Nil 15G/15H Filed 6 Mohit Kejriwal 1,250 Nil Below threshold limit of ₹ 5,000 lL Manish Chirania HUF 2,956 Nil Below threshold limit of ₹ 5,000 Total 6,20,916 I enclose the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued to me, I also enclose now the 26AS statement downloaded on 03.11.2018 and it would be noticed that no income tax refund was issued to me. Thus, it is improper to say that the AO failed to examine the issue of interest on income tax refund of ₹ 2,250. 7. In sum and substance I would like to submit that the AO, during the assessment proceedings made extensive enquiry by issue of notice under section 142(1) of the Act and / or various issues / queries raised verbally and / or through order sheet noting. The assessee submitted voluminous details, evidences, documents and explanation vide letters dated 09/10.08.2017, 30.08.2017, 12.09.2017 and 15.09.2017. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. Without prejudice to the above submissions it is submitted that it is a case where enquiry was made by the AO. It is submitted that where enquiry on the issue was made by the AO,the CIT could not assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Reference is made to the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mulchand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... another show cause notice dated 16/11/2018. However, the assessee did not reply the second show cause notice. Therefore, ld PCIT having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case held that the impugned assessment order dt. 27/11/2017 passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, ld PCIT set aside the Assessment Order u/s. 143(3) dated 27/11/2017 made by AO and directed AO to make fresh assessment. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7.Shri A.K. Tibrewal, ld Counel for the assessee submitted before us that the AO has examined the issues raised in the show cause notice u/s, 263 of the I.T. Act and the AO had verified the various expenses from the books of accounts produced by assessee during the assessment stage. The ld Counsel submits that that the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer after making inquiries u/s 142 (1) of the Act and in conformity of law and judicial pronouncements.Therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there is no justification to hold that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act was erroneous and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
