9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 263 by Commissioner would be barred. The ITAT Rajkot in the case of Parin Furniture Ltd.[ 2022 (7) TMI 957 - ITAT RAJKOT] held that when an appeal is preferred by the assessee under section 250 of the Act before CIT Appeals is pending against order passed by the learned AO under section 147 of the Act, the same cannot be revised under section 263 of the Act. Since the issues in respect of which 263 proceedings were initiated are pending adjudication before Ld. CIT(Appeals) in appeal filed by the assessee under section 250 of the Act, the Principal CIT cannot proceed to simultaneously assume jurisdiction with respect to those very same issues which are under consideration before CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, in view of the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nducting any inquiries/verification which is prejudice to the interest of Revenue even though the AO has dealt with the issues and further the AO has rejected the books of Accounts and estimated the income of @8% on the sales and also made addition of Rs.4,99,17,901 u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (6) The learned PCIT has erred in confirming the initiating Proceeding u/s.263 of the Act. (7) The orders of the learned PCIT is illegal, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Principal CIT observed that the return of income for assessment year 2017-18 was filed by the assessee firm declaring total income of Rs. 52,63,490/-. The assessment was com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly, Principal CIT held that the AO while completing the assessment had not examined the facts of the case and the issues as discussed above. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and was accordingly set aside. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the above order passed by Principal Ld. CIT(Appeals) u/s 263 of the Act. The counsel for the assessee submitted that Principal CIT has grossly erred in taking the view that the above issues were not considered by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. He submitted that a perusal of pages 2, 3, 7 and 8 of the assessment order clearly shows that the very same issues, on the basis of which 263 pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 7 and 8 of the assessment order shows that the same issues on the basis of which 263 proceedings have been initiated were considered by the AO as well. Further, the assessee has filed appeal against those same issues before Ld. CIT(Appeals) u/s 250 of the Act and the same are pending adjudication. In the case of Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 119 (Madras), the High Court held that where assessee sold a property and invested sale consideration from same for purchase of another property and claimed exemption under section 54, however, Assessing Officer allowed exemption under section 54F instead of section 54, and, assessee filed an appeal against said order, since larger issue was pending before Commissioner (Appeals), Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
