9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 16.03.2021 was ever served upon the assessee. No acknowledgement of service of notice is on record. After the issuance of notice, the order u/s 263 of the Act passed within the period of seven day s which is in very short interval. Nothing came on record that the sufficient opportunity was given to the assessee. However, the order in question dated 22.03.2021 is also non speaking on account of service of notice. Observing the violation of principles of natural justice by not providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, we are of the view that the order in question is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, we set aside the same. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby allowed. - I.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax erroneously invoked the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act stating that the assessing officer has not appreciated the facts and provisions of the Act making the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, whereas the A.O. has duly examined the deduction u/s 35(2AB) claimed by the appellant and passed the order accordingly. 4. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Act erred in invoking sec. 263 only for the reason that the appellant failed to furnish the prescribed forms electronically and thereby failed to meet the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 35(2AB), whereas the said conditions were prescribed by the rules which became effective from 01.07.2016 and therefore were not applicable for the yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed authority in Form 3CL to the I. T. Authority specified u/s. 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act and also to furnish the reports In Form 3CLA from an Accountant u/s, 35(2AB) relating to In-house Scientific Research Development facility before the due date of filing Return of Income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. 6. However, it is noticed that the Form was uploaded by the assessee Company as per amended Rules. The assessee has only uploaded Form 3CA-3CD for A.Y. 2016-17 and uploaded Form 3CM from the DSIR. As per Notification, all Companies claiming deduction u/s. 35(2AB) for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards would require compliance with the revised Rules. Thus, the assessee company should have filed Audit Report in Form 3CLA. Since assesse has not fulfilled all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee has argued that no opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee, therefore, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, hence, the order is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Revenue has refuted the said contention. On appraisal of the order dated 22.03.2021 in question, we noticed that the PCIT has issued the notice to the assessee on 16.03.2021 and passed the order in a very short interval on 22.03.2021. However, it is specifically mentioned in the order that the assessee failed to reply to the notice. There is no iota of evidence on record to which it can be assumed that the notice dated 16.03.2021 was ever served upon the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
