9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven on merit, the assessee is entitled to all the deductions/claims as per the provisions of the Act. When the revision order u/s 263 of the Act was set-aside being invalid and any subsequent proceedings shall become infructuous. The Ld.DR could not controvert the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) with any new cogent material or information but relied on the Assessing officer order. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld.CIT(A) who has relied on the Hon ble tribunal decision and passed a reasoned order and we upheld the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the Revenue. - ITA No. 2300/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2021 - Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member And Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Bharat Andhale, DR For the Respondent : Shri Jitendra Sanghavi, AR ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Mumbai, passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,86,19,472/- from the block of assets for the purpose of depreciation and reduced the depreciation claim accordingly. By claiming wrong claim in originally and subsequently reducing it during the course of assessment proceedings is indicative of the fact that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars which would attract the provisions of Sec.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.C.I.T. (A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that, the Pr.CIT in the order u/s.263 had observed that headging and transportation cost is roughly 1072% of the cost of goods sold is unsually high expenditure allowed in the assessment completed u/s.143(3). 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.C.I.T. (A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that, in the Pr.CIT in the order u/s.263 had observed that the assessee company has purchased equity share capital of M/s. Reliance Infrastructure Finance P. Ltd. at par for ₹ 5.25 crores from M/s. Emerging Money Mall Ltd., which was itself purchased from Reliance Capital Ltd. which should not have been accepted by the A.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder which was passed pursuant to the order of the Pr.CIT is void. I, therefore, annul the assessment u/s 251(1)1 (a) of the Act. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of CIT'Vs. Adit Deetopers [2013] 39 taxmann.com 109 (Bombay) wherein the Honble Bombay High Court has held that where order of revision passed by the Commissioner u/s. 263 of the Act had been set aside, the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in pursuance of such revision order automatically became infructuous. 5.3 In the case of CIT Vs. Saravana Developer [2016] 68 taxmann.com 148 (Rar.), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that: 21. The ITAT having considered the material placed before it, rightly set- aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Act, as not sustainable. Accordingly, the assessee's appeal is allowed as the consequential order passed under Section 143(3), read with Section 263 of the Act does not survive for consideration as having become infructuous. No exception can be found with the reasoned order passed by the ITAT. 5.4 In the case of Yes Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (I.T.A. No. 1100/Mum-2014) (Order dated 28.09.2015, the Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orums. Contra, the Ld. AR supported the order of the CIT(A) and filed the paper book and further relied on the order of the Hon ble Tribunal for the A.Y 2012-13 and prayed for dismissal of revenue appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue that the revenue is contesting against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) annulling the assessment order passed u/sec143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act based on the decision of assessee s own case for the same assessment year were the Hon ble tribunal has treated the revision order passed u/sec263 of the Act as invalid. The contentions of the Ld.DR are that the Hon ble Tribunal decision is not accepted by the revenue and appeal u/sec260A of the act was filed before the jurisdictional Hon ble High court. We find that the Hon ble Tribunal in ITA.No.3259/Mum/2017 dated 6-10-2017 has observed at page 54 para 26 and 27 of the order, which is read as under; 26. In view of the foregoing discussions , we note that the AO has passed the assessment order after obtaining and calling for details/clarifications of all the seven issues raised by the Pr CIT in the revisionary proceedings and therea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
