9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2021. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: - 1. The order of PCIT (Central), Chennai-1 dated 16.03.2023 is opposed to the facts of the case and is not legally maintainable. 2. The PCIT has not considered the following issues raised before him with respect to legality: a) The sanction made by the competent authority u/s 151 of the Act was without application of mind. Therefore, the proceedings-initiated u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law. (b)The matter for which proceedings u/s 263 of the Act was invoked is a subject matter of appeal Pending before the First Appellate Authority. As per clause (c) of explanation-1 to Section 263(1) of the Act, the provisions of section 263 cannot be invoked when the subject matter is pending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 16.75 crores which was scrutinized u/s 143(3) on 16.12.2019. However, during the course of search proceedings in the office premises of Devi Bottles group of companies & others on 06.08.2019, certain incriminating material was found containing details of transaction of that group with the assessee. The same led to initiation of proceedings u/s 153C against the assessee and notice u/s 153C was issued to the assessee on 26.07.2021. The assessee filed return of income on 28.09.2021 on the basis of which impugned assessment was framed. 3.2 It also transpired that on the date of issue of notice u/s 153C, reassessment proceedings u/s 147 was pending against the assessee for this year. The assessment framed u/s 143(3) was already reopened and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on an order passed u/s 153C. Another contention was that provisions of Sec.263 could be invoked only with respect to matters coming within the purview of Sec.153C subject to outcome of appeal which was pending before CIT(A) and not on matters which were recorded as reasons for reopening the assessment u/s 147. 4.3 However, rejecting assessee's submissions, Ld. Pr. CIT held that the reasons recorded for issuance of notice u/s 148 were duly supplied to the assessee. There was escapement of income since the assessee did not disallow the donations and CSR expenses which were not incurred for the purpose of business. The two components were taxable and the assessee had not disclosed the true and full material facts in the return of income. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the assessee before Ld. First appellate authority challenging assessment order dated 30.09.2021, it could be seen that in the pending appeal against order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 144, the assessee has questioned the legality of reassessment proceedings u/s 147, inter-alia, on the ground that no fresh material came into the possession of Ld. AO so as to form an opinion of escapement of income. Since the proceedings u/s 147 was bad in law, the scope of assessment u/s 153C would not include the scope of reassessment u/s 147. The assessee also assailed the proceedings on the ground that sanction issued u/s 151 was given in a mechanical and casual manner. The assessee has also challenged the legality of proceedings u/s 153C. Since the la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is entitled to, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 54F of the Act and assigned certain reasons for that. Therefore, the larger issue was pending before the Commissioner of Appeals, and in such circumstances, the Commissioner could not exercise power under Section 263 of the Act on account of the statutory bar. Therefore, on this ground also, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act was wholly erroneous. 24. As noticed above, the Assessing Officer while completing the re-assessment proceedings has assigned certain reasons for coming to a conclusion that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 54F and not under Section 54 of the Act. This reason assigned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order passed by the Commissioner dated 14.03.2012, under Section 263 of the Act as confirmed by the Tribunal by order dated 13.07.2012 are set aside, and it is left open to the assessee to pursue her claim before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Substantial Questions of Law are answered in favour of the assessee. Since, the matter has been pending for a quite long number of years and there has been repeated orders of assessment, we direct the Assessing Officer to give effect to the re-assessment order dated 31.12.2009, wherein the Assessing Officer had granted the benefit of Section 54F of the Act to the assessee. No costs. The Hon'ble Court thus held that when larger issue was pending before CIT(A), the revisionary authority coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
