9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to interfere in the finding of the Ld. PCIT given in the impugned order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed and revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act are held to be valid and hold that the Ld. PCIT has rightly invoked the jurisdiction and carried out the revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 829/Kol/2018 - - - Dated:- 13-6-2022 - Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member And Shri Sonjoy Sarma , Judicial Member By Appellant/Assessee : None By Respondent/Department : Shri Tushal Dhawal Singh, CIT/Ld.DR ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM. This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 is directed against the order of ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-4, Kolkata dated 15-02-2018 framed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) That the notice dated 19th December, 2017 issued by the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata 4 (,Pr. CIT') under section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961('Act') is bad in law, void ab initio and are liable to be quashed. 2) That the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the assessee. The assessee did not appear on 24-02-2020, 05-11-2020, 13-10-2021,06-04-2022 and 09-06-2022. Notice was sent through RPAD (Registered Post with A.D). But the same was returned unserved. Under these circumstances, we have no option left except to proceed for adjudication of the issues raised in this appeal with the assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative. On perusal of the above mentioned grounds of appeal, we find that the assessee has challenged the validity of jurisdiction invoked by the Ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act holding the order of the Ld.AO dt. 21-03-2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. During the course of hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of the Ld. PCIT. 5. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and also gone through the records placed before us. We notice that the Ld. PCIT issued show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act pointing out the following issues alleging them to have remained to be examined/enquired by the Ld. AO ( which are incorporated in para 2 of the impugned order), which reads as under:- It is noticed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be disallowed. Capitalization means at latter date depreciation will be claimed on such expense. 6. During the course of revisionary proceeding the assessee made general statements without furnishing necessary details so as to show that issues raised in the show cause notice has been examined by the Ld. AO. Thereafter, the Ld. PCIT after considering the submissions of the assessee held that the assessment order dt. 21- 03-2016 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue observing as under:- 4. The assessee in his submission stated that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy proceedings has been initiated against the company and the matter has been referred to Insolvency Professional by National Company Law Tribunal. Hence, as per the provisions of Insolvency Proceedings, no other proceedings can be initiated against the company until the Insolvency Proceedings are completed. The submission of the assessee in this regard is not tenable as it appears that the same is applicable for pending suit only not for any income tax proceedings. 5. As regard issue relating to 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the plea of the assessee appears to be general and not substan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l also call for intervention U/S 263 of the Act by the CIT/Pr. CIT. It is a trite law that the disclosure of facts by the assessee in the return of income and for in the course of assessment proceedings cannot give immunity from revisional jurisdiction of the CIT/Pr. CIT u/s 263. In this context, it may be mentioned here that in the case of Commissioner of Income tax, CentralI Kolkata Vs Maithan International, it was held by Calcutta High Court [2015] 56 taxmann.com 283(Calcutta) that it is not the law that the Assessing Officer occupying the position of an investigator and adjudicator can discharge his function by perfunctory or inadequate investigation. Such a course is bound to result in erroneous and prejudicial order. Where the relevant enquiry was not undertaken, as in the case, the order is erroneous and prejudicial too and therefore revisable. Investigation should always be faithful and fruitful. Unless all fruitful areas or enquiry are pursued the enquiry cannot be said to have been faithfully conducted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, further, in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs CIT( l968) 67 ITR 87(SC) and Srnt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT( 1973)8B ITR323 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out in the show cause needs verification as merely accepting submission without calling for relevant material/evidences during the course of assessment proceedings the A.O. failed to examine the above referred issue. After having considered the position of law and facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that the assessment order passed by the A.O. is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in accordance with the Explanation 2(c ) below section 263 (1) of the Act. Accordingly, the issue is set aside to the table of A.O on specific point mentioned in para 2 above. The A.O is directed to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee company to produce documents evidences which it may choose to rely upon for substantiating its own claim. Thereafter a fresh assessment order may be passed in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. 7. A perusal of above finding of the Ld. PCIT and also considering the judicial precedence referred therein, we find that neither any details were filed during the course of revisionary proceedings before the Ld. PCIT nor any details were filed before this Tribunal. There is no di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
