9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neous' and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which is correctly framed by the AO as per the provisions of the Act. Under these circumstances the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act can not be held to be valid. We also find merit in the alternative plea of the AR that in the immediately previous year relevant to assessment year 2013- 14, income earned from NSEL was offered as business income and the same was duly accepted by the revenue in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A. We note that the Ld. PCIT has not disturbed the previous year. Therefore, once the revenue has accepted the income from trading in commodity on NSEL as business income, then loss which arise from the NSEL trading cannot be terme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness promotion expenses. Thereafter, a search action was carried out u/s 132 of the Act on 24.02.2016 in the case of Shri Sanjay Kumar Saraf and his group of companies. The assessee was also covered in the said search. Thereafter a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued and in response thereto, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a loss ₹ 5,45,21,343/-. The AO after examining , analyzing and verifying the details furnished by the assessee framed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act determining the total loss at ₹ 5,41,86,522/- after making disallowance of ₹ 3,34,821/- under section 14A of the Act. 4. Thereafter the Ld. PCIT by exercising the revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and proved during the assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act and the only addition made was on account of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. When DR was specifically asked as to how the action of the PCIT is justified, the ld DR simply relied on the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. Thus, we find merits in the contentions of the AR that the said assessment framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act can not be faulted with and held to be 'erroneous' and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which is correctly framed by the AO as per the provisions of the Act. Under these circumstances the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act can not be held to be valid. 6. The case of the assessee is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fault could be found with the AO in giving effect to the order of the CIT (A). Consequently, the CIT could not invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 on the ground that the assessment u/s 153A was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 7. On identical facts, the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal while dealing with similar issue in the case of Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT (86 taxmann.com 279) has held that ..It is observed that the Assessing Officer after deliberating upon the contention of the assessee that as on the date on which the search and seizure proceedings under section 132 were conducted on it, viz. 14-3-2013, no assessment or reassessment proceedings for the year under consideration i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;, therefore, the Principal Commissioner had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and revised the order in exercise of the powers vested with him under section 263. Thus, the order passed by the Principal Commissioner under section 263 is set aside and the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A read with section 143(3), dated, 27-3-2015 is restored. 8. We also find merit in the alternative plea of the AR that in the immediately previous year relevant to assessment year 2013- 14, income earned from NSEL was offered as business income and the same was duly accepted by the revenue in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A. We note that the Ld. PCIT has not disturbed the previous year. Therefore, once the revenue has accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
