9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case, the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in re-opening the assessment u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and erred in directing the Assessing Officer to pass assessment order de-novo after making inquiries on the points set out in the notice, which were already examined and considered during original assessment proceedings. 2. The order of the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax is bad in law and on facts. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter and omit all or any of the grounds of appeal with permission of the Hon'ble Appellate Authority." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of production of Sponge Iron from iron ore. The assessee filed its retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayments made therein before due date of filing of return. The details contained therein are self-explanatory and no further disallowance under section 43B of the Act was called for. Therefore, the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and that revision is not justified. The reply of the assessee was not accepted by the ld. PCIT. The ld. PCIT held that the AO did not examine or investigated the issue mentioned in the show-cause notice. The AO made assessment without conducting proper enquiry which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The AO was directed to carry out necessary enquiries for limited issues. Aggrieved by the order of ld. PCIT, the assessee has filed the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder has been held erroneous. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 is bad in law at the threshold and subsequent action being bad in law and void ab-initio. 5. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR of the Revenue supported the order of the ld.PCIT. The ld. CIT-DR submits that the AO has not conducted proper enquiries, on various provisions made in the tax audit report and no disallowance under section 43B was made by the AO. Accordingly, assessment order under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully. There is no dispute that a search action was carried out on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Alagendran Finance Ltd. [162 Taxman 465] (SC) and Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. ICICI Bank Ld., [19 taxmann.com 142] (Bombay). Accordingly, the action initiated under section 263 is barred by time period prescribed under section 263(2) of the Act. Thus, the revision order passed qua A.Y. 2008-09 is bad in law and subsequent action initiated therein is void ab-initio. Considering, the facts that we have quashed the revision order on limitation issue only, therefore, discussions on the merits of the case have become academic. In the result the grounds of the appeal is allowed. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 10-08-2021 by placing result on notice board. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
