9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sustainable. Similarly in the present case the Ld. PCIT has not undertaken any enquiry despite the assessee submitting all the necessary details/evidences to this effect and there was no mistake in the order as the so called difference was correctly assessed to tax in AY 2015-16, AY 2017-18 and of Rs. 1,14,500/- shown on account of wrong deduction by Electrosteel Steel Ltd. reimbursement of expenses was appearing in Form 26AS in AY 2017-18. In view of these facts, we are inclined to quash the revisionary proceedings as well the order passed u/s 263 of the Act.Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A. No. 25/Pat/2022 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2022 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) And Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e declared by the assesse in the books of accounts. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the assessee u/s 263 of the Act dated 21.12.2021 as to why the assessment order dated 04.12.2019 should not be cancelled, set aside and revised as the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the reasons stated hereinabove. The assessee replied the said show cause notice by filing detailed reconciliation and explaining that there is no difference of Rs. 36,23,515/- and the said income has already been offered to tax as under: Reconciliation of Difference as per SCN u/s 263 of the Act Excess Income offered in FY 2014-15 7,66,485/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to notice issued u/s 263 of the Act with with proper reconciliation and corroborating evidences. The Ld. A.R submitted that Ld. PCIT has failed to demonstrate as to how the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 04.12.2019 is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the difference pointed out by the Ld. PCIT in fact is not there as the income representing the said difference stood assessed to tax in the earlier two years mainly Rs. 7,66,485/- in FY 2014-15 and Rs. 27,42,530/- in FY 2015-16 and TDS of Rs. 1,14,500/- was wrongly deducted by Electrosteel Steel Ltd. on reimbursement of expenses in FY 2016-17 shown in Form 26AS relevant to AY 2017-18. The Ld. PCIT has not gone i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et aside and direct the AO to make assessment after making fresh assessment and verification. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the said action of Ld. PCIT is against the provision of the Act and is supported by the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. in (2018) 99 taxmann.com 382 (Del). 5. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the order of PCIT , there is no prejudice caused to the assessee by exercise the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee would be afforded reasonable opportunity of presenting its case and therefore prayed that appeal of the assessee may kindly be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions and perusing the material on record including the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 263 cannot be invoked. Similarly the case of the assessee finds support to the decision referred by the Ld. A.R namely PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon ble High Court held that the Ld. PCIT has to determine the excess depreciation before setting aside the order of AO but since the Ld. PCIT has not undertaken any enquiry to this effect and therefore the order of Ld. PCIT was not sustainable. Similarly in the present case the Ld. PCIT has not undertaken any enquiry despite the assessee submitting all the necessary details/evidences to this effect and there was no mistake in the order as the so called difference was correctly assessed to tax in AY 2015-16, AY 2017-18 and of Rs. 1,14,500/- shown on acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
