9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and circumstances of the case. Once there is no statutory restriction placed in exercise of section 263 jurisdiction at the prescribed authorities instance, we must adopt stricter construction going by Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar Co [ 2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT] to interpret the impugned jurisdiction in wide terms only. The assessee fails in his instant first and foremost argument. We find from the perusal of case files that the learned counsel could not place any material before us during the course of arguments that the Assessing Officer had carried out all his details enquiries whilst disallowing/adding the relevant heads of expenses and credits (supra) in part than in entirety once it was a fit cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness of all these heads of expenses and credits; as the case may be, by filing cogent supportive evidence. We therefore hold that there is no prejudice caused to the assessee in light of PCIT s directions to the Assessing Officer u/s 144. The assessee fails in all her arguments thereof. The PCIT s revision order under challenge is upheld. Decided against assessee. - ITA No.316/PUN/2022 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2023 - Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member And Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Ms Ruchi M Rathod For the Revenue : Shri Keyur Patel, CIT ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This assessee s appeal for AY 2017-18 arises against the PCIT-2, Pune s order dated .03.2022 passed in case No.Pn/PCIT- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 21.02.2022 inter-alia, affording opportunities of hearing to the assessee before holding the Assessing Officer s section 154 assessment dated 20.12.2019 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue. The assessee claims before us that he had strongly contested the PCIT s said show cause notices which stand rejected in the impugned revision directions as follows: 4. Learned counsel vehemently argued at the outset that the impugned revision proceedings have been initiated on the basis of audit party and the Assessing Officer s proposal which is not sustainable in law as per Hindustan Level Ltd vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 108 (Cal), Om Prakash Agarwal vs. PCIT in ITA No.204/JP/2022, dated 29.08.2022 and Alfa Laval Lund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stance, we must adopt stricter construction going by Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) to interpret the impugned jurisdiction in wide terms only. The assessee fails in his instant first and foremost argument. 4.1. We find from the perusal of case files that the learned counsel could not place any material before us during the course of arguments that the Assessing Officer had carried out all his details enquiries whilst disallowing/adding the relevant heads of expenses and credits (supra) in part than in entirety once it was a fit case wherein he had already held this taxpayer to have failed in proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness by way of filing cogent evidence. We note from a perusal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 31.01.2020 against Assessing Officer s section 144 assessment dated 20.12.2019, the PCIT s action under challenge assuming the jurisdiction is not sustainable u/s 263 Explanation (1) (c). He has quoted CIT vs. Vam Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 418 ITR 723 (All) and Renuka Philip vs. ITO (2018) 409 ITR 567 (Mad) in support. We find no merit in the assessee s instant last argument as well in light of hon ble apex court s decision in CIT vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC) (FB) that the above exclusion clause regarding prescribed authority exercising section 263 revision jurisdiction does extends to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal . We make it clear that there is no material before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
