9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdiction of making any independent addition/disallowance. As the Assessing Officer in the backdrop of his limited scope of jurisdiction could not have drawn any adverse inferences as regards the claim of forex loss, and therein made any independent addition/disallowance in the hands of the assessee, therefore, the order passed by him u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2016 being in conformity with the view taken in case of CIT Vs. Gurinder Singh Bawa [ 2015 (10) TMI 1761 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT Vs. Deepak kumar Agarwal [ 2017 (9) TMI 850 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] could not be dubbed as erroneous, failing which the same could not have been revised by the Pr. CIT. The order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 cannot be sustaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.263 is not sustainable in as much as the Original assessment was u/s.143(3) Dt. 30.12.2011 by ACIT, Circle-4, Nagpur in which qua the forex loss the A.O. has asked for compliance and Assessee made those compliances by letters Dt. 16.12.2015 and 23.12.2011 alongwith enclosures which are on record, were not considered. Dy CIT in course of assessment u/s 143(3) read with 153A considered the compliances qua the forex loss and was satisfied and therefore accepted the Original Assessment in 153A proceeding and further no incriminating documents were found in searching negating the already allowed claim regarding forex loss of ₹ 2,71,21,250/-. 5.That the order u/s.263 qua the amount of forex loss of ₹ 2,71,21,250/- is without juri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter necessary deliberations the Assessing Officer vide his order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2016 accepted the income returned by the assessee at Rs. Nil. 4. After culmination of the assessment proceedings the Pr. CIT called for the assessment records of the assessee. Observing, that the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment had failed to verify the forex loss of ₹ 7,62,99,365/- that was debited by the assessee in its Profit loss account, the Pr. CIT called upon the assessee to explain as to why the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, dated 30.12.20111 may not be revised. As the reply filed by the assessee did not find favor with the Pr. CIT, therefore, he v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of law; and (ii). that as the Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2011 had duly verified the assessee s claim of business loss of ₹ 2,71,21,250/-, therefore, qua the said issue the Pr. CIT could not have assumed jurisdiction to revise the assessment order u/s.263 of the Act. 7. As the assessee has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 of the Act, therefore, we shall first deal with the same. It is the claim of the ld. AR that as no incriminating material in the assessee s case for the year under consideration was found in the course of the search proceedings conducted u/s 132(1) of the Act on 12.02.2015, therefore, in the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 91 (Del.) (ii). Principal CIT Vs. Devangi (2017) 394 ITR 184 (Guj.) (iii). Principal CIT Vs. Ms. Lata Jain (2016) 384 ITR 543 (iv). Abhishek Lodha, Mumbai Vs. Assessee Mumbai G Bench (v). Mala Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT (2016) 51 ITR (Trib) 272 (Chd) (vi). Bishwanath Garodia Vs. Dy CIT (2016) Taxmann.com 81 (Kol-Trib) (vii). Jailokenath Oil Extractions (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy CIT (2017) 83 taxmann.com 369/166 ITO 161 (Kol) (viii). Asst CIT Vs. Layer Exports (P) Ltd. (2017) 181 TTJ 469 (Mum.) (ix) Mahipat Raichand Sharebroking Vs. Deputy I. Tax, Ahmedabad ITA No.323/Ahd/2010 8. Backed by our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that now when no incriminating material in the case of the assessee for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
