9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. Even though no addition was made by the ld. AO in Section 147 assessment dated 12/12/2018 in line with order of ld. CIT(A), still in our considered opinion, there would be no prejudice that would be caused to the Revenue as the additional disallowance contemplated by the ld. CIT(A) u/s. 14A of the Act would be made in either case by the ld. AO in the order giving effect proceedings to the ld. CIT(A). Hence, there is absolutely no prejudice that would be caused to the interest of the Revenue. Hence, one of the pre-requisite of invoking Section 263 of the Act fails. PCIT herein is only seeking to revise the order passed by the ld. AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 12/12/2018. In the said re-assessment proceedings, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has raised several grounds before us, we deem it fit to address the preliminary issue as to whether the ld. PCIT had validly assumed revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 was filed by the assessee on 13/03/2013 declaring total income of ₹ 21,07,41,014/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31/03/2014. Later this assessment was sought to be reopened by the ld. AO u/s. 147 of the Act on the ground that assessee had not offered profit earned to tax on surrender of purchase of pension policy from Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee and on surrender there was a total loss of ₹ 65,24,979; and the loss has been claimed against exempt gain u/s. 10(38) of the Act. This loss has been arrived at after setting of gains on surrender of 3 policies mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening u/s. 147 of the IT Act against the loss from surrender of other policies. The assesses had not claimed loss of ₹ 65,24,979/- as deduction from any other heads of income. 3.1. The re-assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 12/12/2018 accepting the return of income of the assessee. This assessment was sought to be revised by the ld. PCIT on the ground that assessee had debited on the ground that assessee had debited an amount of ₹ 28,86,355/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax Rules and computed the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act at ₹ 73,25,345/- and after reducing the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee in the sum of ₹ 19,61,448/-, the final disallowance figure of ₹ 53,63,897/- was made by the ld. AO. This disallowance was contested by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 30/12/2016 in para 6.3.1 had categorically recorded that assessee had voluntarily disallowed security transaction tax of ₹ 9,26,543/- separately in the computation of income apart from making voluntarily disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act of ₹ 19,61,448/-. He also mentioned that assessee had not given the break-up of expenses considered for the disallowance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al on account of low tax effect. Hence, it could be safely concluded that the issue which is sought to be revised by the ld. PCIT in Section 263 proceedings was already considered and decided by the ld. CIT(A) in the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. As per the provisions of Clause (c) of Explanation to Section 263(1) of the Act, the matter which has already been considered and decided by the ld. CIT(A) cannot be the subject matter of revision by the ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act. Even though no addition was made by the ld. AO in Section 147 assessment dated 12/12/2018 in line with order of ld. CIT(A), still in our considered opinion, there would be no prejudice that would be caused to the Revenue as the additional disallowance contemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
