9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etailed affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. From the perusal of the same, it is noted that the assessee was a partnership firm which was formed by Deed of Partnership dated 30.06.1999 and later got dissolved on 02.04.2007 by execution of Deed of Dissolution. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 05.06.2009 which was handed over to the ex-partner Shri Debasish Chakraborty on 19.06.2009 and since the partnership was dissolved and the partners were separated and could not be contacted and also because of advice of Shri Dilip Kumar Saha, FCA, the partner of assessee firm Shri Debasish Chakraborty did not pursue filing an appeal before the Tribunal. When the demand was raised by the Department and the Department attached the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irection from the CIT." 4. From a perusal of the aforesaid paragraph of the impugned order it is discerned that AO vide letter dated 15.04.2008 has sent a proposal to the Ld. CIT to exercise his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act terming the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the reason that the AO could not receive the verification in respect of the source of receipt from 10 parties from whom the assessee has taken advances to the tune of Rs. 42,75,375/-. In the light of the aforesaid proposal from the AO, the Ld. CIT has exercised his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. A perusal of sec. 263 of the Act reads as under: "Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263(1) The Principal Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to exercise powers in their respective given sphere which is clearly ear-marked and spelled out by the statute. Here, we note that the AO who is empowered by the Act to assess a subject within a prescribed time period has first assessed the assessee and later after passage of time has taken up a proposal with the CIT to exercise his revisional jurisdiction cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that when in the first place the AO noticing that he failed to properly enquire before assessing the assessee within the time limit prescribed by the statute cannot be allowed to get fresh innings to reassess because it was his duty to enquire properly within the time limit prescribed by the statute. Therefore, the very invocation of revisional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
