9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , party wise sale, receipts of each project and project wise gross profit etc. As undisputed fact that it has also been brought to the notice of ld. Pr.CIT that it has already been verified in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for assessment year 2012-13 to 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2018-19 that assessee has constantly followed the percentage completion method. As evident from the various information obtained by the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings that AO has verified and considered the various detail in respect of the method adopted by the assessee for recognizing the revenue. CIT has not disproved the material placed on record by the assessee in support of their claim that they have followed percentage completion method and not project completion method. In respect of claim of TDR expenses as undisputed fact that assessee was engaged in the business of construction and development of building. The assessee has explained that TDR was a right of construction in form of FSI relating to land and building which was part of stock in trade in the business carried out by the assessee, therefore, we consider that treating TDR in the nature of capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing. 2. Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs. 228, 82,260/- was filed on 29.08.2018. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme 2019 on the following issues: i. Income from real business: ii. Unsecured Loans: A notice u/s 143(2) dated 22.09.2019 was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) 143(3B) of the Act was finalised on 20.03.2021 by accepting the income returned by the assessee. 3. Subsequently, the ld. Pr.CIT, Mumbai-27 issued a notice u/s 263 of the Act on 01.03.2023 and 03.03.2023. The relevant extract of the notice issued is reproduced as under: 1. On the basis of details available on record, it is seen that: 1. The assessee is builder/developer and engaged in construction of housing Projects. 2. On perusal of Profit Loss A/c., it is seen that during the year under consideration the assessee has shown Sales of Rs. 15,53,02.580/- and Closing Finished Goods at Rs. 15,27,80,503/- Further assessee has claimed expenses under the head Interest Expenses of Rs. 1,90,10, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, may not be passed in your case. 4. Vide notice issued u/s 263 of the Act the ld. Pr. CIT has pointed out that the assessing officer in the assessment order has not mentioned that whether the assessee was following percentage completion method or project completion method for recognising the revenue. The ld. Pr.CIT on verification of the profit and loss account noticed that assesse has debited an amount of Rs. 190,10,995/- as interest cost during the year under consideration. The ld. PCIT was of the view that assessee was following project completion method therefore claim of interest on loan taken during the year was not allowable in the year under consideration. The ld. Pr.CIT noticed that during the year the assessee has taken unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 496,36,010/- on which the assessee has paid interest of Rs. 31,98,292/-. The ld. Pr.CIT further stated that assessee has also shown secured loan from Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. amounting to Rs. 179,98,713/- for which the date of loan taken was not available on record and interest component need to be examined. 4. The Pr.CIT has also seen that assessee has debited amount of Rs. 5,00,000 towards TDR expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . For each loan taken from any financial institution, kindly provide loan sanction letter. He also referred serial no. 11, 12, 13 and 18 of the questionnaire wherein the AO has asked the following detail: 11. Kindly furnish the details of major heads of expenditure debited to the Trading and Profit Loss a/c and details of TDS made on such expenses, if applicable. Also kindly furnish details of ledgers and all major bills regarding the above. 12. Please provide project wise party wise details of Sales made along with the (i) details of property i.e. Bungalow/flat/shop no., (ii) area of property, (iii) date of sale and/or agreement of sale, (iv) the name(s), PAN complete postal address of the party, (v) total amount of transaction value, (vi) amount received, (vii) amount receivable, to whom, sales (and/or agreement of sales) of units/flats/shops were made during the year ended on 31.03.2018. Also kindly provide copy of Sale/Agreement deed and supporting vouchers/ledgers of sales account/ evidences etc. substantiating your claim. In case of no such transactions carried out by you, you may skip the reply to this question. 13. Kindly furnish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there are four separate arguments brought out hereunder: A. Since, NEAC/ NFAC (referred to as NEAC) has jurisdiction to pass assessment order and since, NEAC has, in fact, passed order, therefore, the same cannot be revised by the Respondent. a. Jurisdiction to pass order and that the order is, in fact, passed by NEAC i. Notification No. 61/2019 dated 12.09.2019 issued u/s 143(3A) of the Act - Para 4(i) -NEAC shall be vested with the jurisdiction to make assessment. ii. Notification No. 60/2020 dated 12.09.2019 issued u/s 143(3A) of the Act para 5(xvi) - NEAC shall examine the order by way of automated examination tool and then finalise the assessment. Even other clauses (viz., (xviii), (xix), (xxi), (xxii) and (xxv)] point out that the power to finalise and pass the assessment order is with NEAC. Same is accepted by the Ld. DR in para 2.1.1 of the written submission. iii. Impugned order dated 02 03 2021, is passed by NEAC, and signed by one of the Officers of NEAC b. NEAC is a unit or a body or a centre and not an income tax authority. c. NEAC comprises of a team of people, including PCCIT, CIT, AddI/Jt. CIT and DCIT/ACIT (See Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any order of TPO is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue CIT cannot exercise jurisdiction over TPO as TPO functions separately under the Director of IT(TP). In our view the Director of IT should have initiated the proceedings under s. 263 on the order of the TPO instead of sending proposal to the CIT for revising the order of the TP . ii. ITA(TP) no. 3121and 3122/Mum./2013 Tata Communications Limited vs. DCIT dated 20.12.2013- (See para 9 and 10) e. It is very important to note that the above view has been incorporated in the Legislature itself vide amendment to section 263 carried out by Finance Act 2022 and power has been given to DIT(TP) to revise order of TPO. Thus, the Legislature has accepted that only Commissioner of the same jurisdiction can exercise revisionary power over the orders passed by an Officer subordinate in his jurisdiction. This has been brought out in the Circular No. 23/2022 (dated 03.11.2022) which brings out the explanatory notes to F.A. 2022. Para 43 deals with this issue. And para 43.3 is brought out hereunder: Therefore, the provisions of section 263 of the Act have been amended so as to provide that the Principal Chief Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d FAO have concurrent jurisdiction to assess an assessee. However, assessment is to be done by only one to the exclusion of the other i.e., only one can exercise power to assess and pass an order to the exclusion of other and both cannot do it simultaneously. This has been recognised under the Act and the faceless scheme and the instructions issued thereunder. This fact is undisputed. e. Thus, there are two Assessing Officers, exercising concurrent power i.e, JAO and FAO, but one to the exclusion of the other. f. It is an undisputed fact, that both the officers have a superior officer in the rank of CIT/PCIT in their respective jurisdictions. g. In such a scenario, if order is passed by A officer, then the same can be revised by CIT/ PCIT who has jurisdiction over such Officer and if order is passed by B Officer, then then the same can be revised by CIT/PCIT who has jurisdiction over such Officer. Thus, superior of A Officer cannot revise the order of B Officer and vice versa, because he is not subordinate to PCIT/CIT of A jurisdiction and vice versa. h. To support this, an analogy can be drawn from the fact that even the approvals for specified ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss Regime as he has territorial jurisdiction; JAO and Jurisdictional PCIT have perpetual jurisdiction over a case; b. In para 2.1.3 and 2.1.4, it is stated that as per the Notification stated therein the jurisdiction of FAO is concurrent; c. After completion of the assessment, the records are transferred to the JAO; d. Concurrent jurisdiction ends with the completion of assessment, e. That, as per the scheme, a case can at any moment be transferred to the JAO for completion of assessment. f. That the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and Office Memorandum dated 06.02.2023, has held that the JAO has concurrent jurisdiction and that he can issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. b. Rebuttal In this regard, the following is submitted: i. Insofar as the first contention is concerned that the power of PCIT does not in any manner get affect is concerned, it is submitted that the same is not even disputed by the Assessee. JAO and Jurisdictional PCIT have jurisdiction over the Assessee. However, powers u/s 263 are peculiar to a superior Officer whose subordinate has passed the order. Jurisdictional PCIT can exercise power u/s 263 of the Act, only over the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on completion of assessment 5. Further, transfer of record, does not mean that the order shall be deemed to be passed by the JAO and not FAO. Moreover, mere transfer of record would not mean transfer of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act to an Officer who had no jurisdiction. The notification u/s 143(3A) or 143(3B) of the Act, does not in any manner determine the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 6. In any case, what is transferred is only the 'electronic record' and not the complete record 7. Fourthly, as held by the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT, in such case, it would be apt for the Jurisdictional PCIT to refer the matter to the Faceless PCIT. He can very well transfer the electronic records to the PCIT (AU), to exercise jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, because the order has been passed by his subordinate. 8. Records are in any case electronic and available to all. In fact, records u/s 263 is widely defined to mean any record upto the date of passing of order by PCIT including records in case of other parties (See [1998] 231 ITR 53 (SC) CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products Camphor Works(enclosed). Thus, the PCIT(AU) having jurisdiction over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise power u/s 263 of the Act. ii. Para 2.2 to 2.2.5 a. The Ld. DR has contended the following i. That the power u/s 263 is a supervisory power to correct the erroneous orders of his subordinates. ii. In para 2.2.3 the Ld. DR has reiterated about transfer of records b. Rebuttal: In the above regard, it is submitted that: i. in para 2.2.2, it has been contended that the PCIT can revised the order of his subordinate office. Since, the order is not of his subordinate office, therefore, the PCIT, Mumbai had no power to revise u/s 263 of the Act. ii. The transfer of record argument is a repetition and has been dealt with earlier. iii. Para 2.3 to 2.3.4 a. In par 2.3 till 2.3.4, the following has been contended. i. In para 2.3.1 it has been mentioned that concurrent jurisdiction of PCIT(AU) is restricted to faceless assessment proceeding and not extended to section 263 of the Act. ii. In para 2.3.2. it has been mentioned there is no separate notification for granting power to PCIT(AU) iii. There is a floating nature of the Faceless assessment units. b. Rebuttal: In the above regard, the following is submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Scheme which was under the supervision of the another Pr.CIT. The ld. Counsel referred the CBDT Notification dated 12.03.2019. He referred para 4 of the notification as under: 4. E-assessment Centres (1) For the purposes of this Scheme the Board may set up- (i) National assessment Centre to facilitate the conduct of e assessment proceedings in a centralised manner. which shall be vested with the jurisdiction to make assessment in accordance with the provisions of thus Scheme. (ii) assessment units, at it may deem necessary to facilitate the conduct of e-assessment, to perform the function of making assessment, which includes identification of points or issues material for the determination of any liability (including refund) under the Act, seeking information or clarification on points or issues so identified. analysis of the material furnished by the assessee on any other person, and such other functions as may be required for the purposes of making assessment. He also referred para (3) of the CBDT notification dated 12.09.2019 which is reproduced as under: (3) The units referred to in sub-paragraphs (i), (iv), (v) and (vi) of paragraph (1) shall h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that in the case of any order of TPO is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, CIT cannot exercise jurisdiction over TPO as TPO functions separately under the Director of IT (TP). He also referred the case of ITAT, Mumbai of Tata Communication Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT vide ITA No. 3122/Mum/2013 dated 20.12.2013 based on the decision of the ITAT in the case of Essar Steel Ltd. holding that Commissioner has no jurisdiction over the TPO administratively and he could not have revised the order passed u/s 92CA(3) passed by the TPO. The ld. Counsel submitted that supervisory power over the assessing officer cannot be exercised by the non-faceless Pr.CIT in case assessment is made by the faceless assessing officer and if the assessment order was passed with the approval of various authorities then initiating of proceeding u/s 263 of the Act by the Pr.CIT having physical jurisdiction is not correct. On the other hand, the ld. D.R submitted that there is no role of Pr.CIT in giving guidance to the assessing officer for passing the assessment order under the faceless scheme. The ld. D.R also referred the notification of the Board of CBDT dated 13.08.2023 particularly clause (xxvi) wherein it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the PCIT, Mumbai-27 to pass order u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 in the above-mentioned case for AY 2018-19 on the ground that the assessment order revised by the PCIT was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) 143(3B) of the Act under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. He also argued that the order u/s 263 of the Act ought to have been passed by the PCIT (Assessment Unit). 2. The aforesaid ground of appeal is not tenable in view of the following submissions put forth in the ensuing paragraphs. 2.1 It is vehemently argued that the PCIT, Mumbai-27 had territorial jurisdiction over the case and has correctly exercised the power to invoke provisions of section 263 of the Act. 2.1.1 The territorial jurisdiction of the PCIT, Mumbai-27 over the above- mentioned case is absolute irrespective of the fact that the assessment order has been passed under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. In this context, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the E- assessment Scheme, 2019. The said Scheme was notified vide the CBDT Notification dated 12th September, 2019 for the purpose of making assessment of total income or loss of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 023-TPL issued by the CBDT throws light on the issue of concurrent jurisdiction of the Faceless Assessment Units and the original jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(JAO) in Para 4 in the following manner: 4. It is also pertinent to note here that under the provisions of the Act both the JAO as well as units under NFAC have concurrent jurisdiction. The Act does not distinguish between JAO or NFAC with respect to jurisdiction over a case. This is further corroborated by the fact that under section 144B of the Act the records in a case are transferred back to the JAO as soon as the assessment proceedings are completed. So, section 144B of the Act lays down the role of NFAC and the units under it for the specific purpose of conduct of assessment proceedings in a specific case in a particular Assessment Year. This cannot be construed to be meaning that the JAO is bereft of the jurisdiction over a particular assessee or with respect to procedures not falling under the ambit of section 144B of the Act. Since, section 144B of the Act does not provide for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, there can be no ambiguity in the fact that the JAO still has th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on 22-03-2021, its electronic records were transferred back to the DCIT, 27(3), Mumbai for other actions required under the Act. Subsequently, proceedings u/s 263 of the Act were initiated by the PCIT, Mumbai-27 by issuing hearing notice on 01-03-2023. Thus, the DCIT, 27(3), Mumbai and consequently, the PCIT, Mumbai-27 never ceased to have jurisdiction over the case. The assessment unit exercised concurrent jurisdiction for a limited duration and for the specific purpose of making the assessment and after the completion of the assessment, its concurrent jurisdiction ended. 2.1.8 In view of the above-stated facts, it is re-iterated the PCIT, Mumbai-27 had complete jurisdiction for the exercise of the power to invoke provisions of section 263 of the Act in this case. 2.2 It is strongly contended that the PCIT, Mumbai-27 has correctly exercised the revisionary jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon by section 263 of the Act. 2.2.1 Section 263 of the Act gives revisionary jurisdiction to the PCIT for revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. In order to exercise the revisionary jurisdiction, the PCIT is empowered to call for and examine the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Unit) is not the competent authority to exercise jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 2.3.1 As noted above in sub-para 2.1.3, the CBDT notification dated 31 March, 2021 empowers all the Income-tax Authorities of Regional Faceless Assessment Centres, including the PCIT (Assessment Unit), to exercise the powers and functions of Assessing Officers concurrently to facilitate the conduct of Faceless Assessment proceedings under section 144B of the Act. This undoubtedly clarifies that the concurrent jurisdiction of the PCIT (Assessment Unit) has been restricted to the conduct of Faceless assessment proceedings under section 144B of the Act and that it does not extend to the exercise of power u/s 263 of the Act. 2.3.2 Till date, no separate notification has been issued by the CBDT nor the provisions of the IT Act have been amended by the Legislature for granting the power to exercise jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act to the PCIT (Assessment Unit). Thus, under the existing scheme, there is no statutory power with the PCIT(Assessment Unit) to conduct the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, there is no ambiguity in the fact that the jurisdictional PCIT still has the jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o noticed in the profit and loss account assessee has shown closing stock of unsold finished flat to the amount of Rs. 15,27,80,503/-. Further we have gone through the audit report filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings in form 3CB and noticed that under the head significant accounting policies and disclosures as per ICDS on page no. 26 of the audit report assessee at Serial No. 2 under the head Revenue Recognition reported as under: a. During the year, the Company has followed the Percentage Completion Method of accounting as per the Guidance Note on Revenue Recognition by the Real Estate Developers issued by The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. Total Sale Consideration as per the agreements of sale of constructed properties is recognized as revenue based on the percentage of actual project cost incurred thereon, including the cost of land, estimated construction and development cost of the such properties, subject to actual construction cost incurred being 25% or more of the total cost of the construction of the project. b. The amount received from customers which does not qualify for revenue recognition under the Percentage Compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s AS-7. The AO has also asked the assessee to furnish the complete computation of income/profit project wise for each project from real estate business. In response vide submission dated 11.01.2021 the assessee has submitted detail of loan taken and interest provided. Vide submission dated 06.02.2021 the assessee has furnished project wise computation of sales and profit. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under: 15. The assessee has further explained that in respect of all the three projects sales were recognized as per the guidance note of recognition of revenue by real estate developer issued by the institute of chartered accountant of India. Further we have also noticed the assessee has submitted work in progress account for the year ended on 31.03.2018 in respect of all three projects. Before the AO the assessee has also furnished detail of project wise cost sheet as placed at page no. 131-132 of the paper book. 16. After taking into consideration the entire material available on record it is evident that during the course of assessment proceeding assessee has filed the relevant copies of audit report and information pertaining to revenue recogni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he NFAC to make assessment He further stated that as per notification no. 60/2020 dated 12.09.2019 issued u/s 143(3) of the Act as per para 5 (xvi) NFAC shall examine the order by way of automated examination tool and then finalized the assessment. After referring the above faceless scheme the ld. Counsel submitted that assessment order dated 02.03.2021 in the case of the assessee was passed by NEAC. He also stated that NEAC comprised of team of people including Pr.CCIT, CIT, Addl/Joint CIT and DCIT/ACIT. He submitted that since the assessment order was passed by team unit consisting of officers either senior to PCIT, Mumbai or similarly placed officer such order cannot be revised by PCIT, Mumbai u/s 263 of the Act. He also referred notification of the CBDT dated 13.08.2020 relating to procedure of assessment and notification dated 31.03.2021 pertaining to the Income Tax Authorities and notification dated 10.06.2022 pertaining to various income tax authorities specified for various place for the purpose of faceless assessment. He also referred SOP for assessment unit, verification unit, technical unit and review unit of REAC, dated 19.11.2020. Similarly, he filed copy of CBDT lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT, PCIT, Addl/JCIT, DCIT/ACITs and ITOs shall exercise the power and functions of assessing officer concurrently to facilitate the conduct of faceless assessment proceedings u/s 144B of the Act. She particularly referred office memorandum dated 06.02.2023 issued by the CBDT on the issue of concurrent jurisdiction of the Faceless Assessment Unit and the original jurisdiction of the jurisdictional assessing officer. She vehemently contended that when the case is specifically assigned to assessment unit under the faceless assessment scheme it exercises concurrent jurisdiction till the completion of the assessment and the scope of the Faceless Assessment Scheme is limited to the making of the assessment in the selected case after which the electronic records pertaining to the assessment are transferred back to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for other actions required under the Act. After referring the aforesaid scheme of Faceless Assessment she submitted that in the case of the assessee after completion of the assessment for the year under consideration the case was transferred electronically to the DCIT-27(3), Mumbai for other actions required under the Act. Consequently, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 147, as the case may be, with respect to the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner as per the following procedure, namely:- (i) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the case selected for the purposes of faceless assessment under this section to a specific assessment unit through an automated allocation system; (ii) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall intimate the assessee that assessment in his case shall be completed in accordance with the procedure laid down under this section; (iii) a notice shall be served on the assessee, through the National Faceless Assessment Centre, under sub-section (2) of section 143 or under sub- section (1) of section 142 and the assessee may file his response to such notice within the date specified therein, to the National Faceless Assessment Centre which shall forward the same to the assessment unit; (iv) where a case is assigned to the assessment unit, under clause (1), it may make a request through the National Faceless Assessment Centre for- (a) obtaining such further information, documents or evidence from the assessee or any other person, as it m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (x) the assessee shall, within the time specified in the notice referred to in clause (ix) or such time as may be extended on the basis of an application in this regard, file his response to the National Faceless Assessment Centre which shall forward the same to the assessment unit; (xi) where the assessee fails to file response to the notice served under clause (ix) within the time specified therein or within the extended time, if any, the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall intimate such failure to the assessment unit; (xii) the assessment unit shall, after taking into account all the relevant material available on the record, prepare, in writing- (a) an income or loss determination proposal, where no variation prejudicial to assessee is proposed and send a copy of such income or loss determination proposal to the National Faceless Assessment Centre, or (b) in any other case, a show cause notice stating the variations prejudicial to the interest of assessee proposed to be made to the income of the assessee and calling upon him to submit as to why the proposed variation should not be made and serve such show cause notice, on the assessee, through th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder sub- clause (a) of clause (xvi) or under clause (xix) to the National Faceless Assessment Centre; (xxi) in case of an eligible assessee, where there is a proposal to make any variation which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee, as mentioned in sub-section (1) under section 144C, the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall serve the draft order referred to in clause (xx) on the assessee; (xxii) in any case other than that referred to in clause (xxi), the National in any case other than the shall convey to the assessment unit to pass the final assessment order in accordance with such draft order, which shall thereafter pass the final assessment order and initiate penalty proceedings, if any, and send it to the National Faceless Assessment Centre; (xxiii) upon receiving the final assessment order as per clause (xxii), the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall serve a copy of such order and notice for initiating penalty proceedings, if any, on the assessee, along with the demand notice, specifying the sum payable by, or refund of any amount due to, the assessee on the basis of such assessment, (xxiv) where a draft order is served on the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aceless Assessment Centre shall, after completion of assessment, transfer all the electronic records of the case to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the said case for such action as may be required under the provisions of this Act, (xxxii) if at any stage of the proceedings before it, the assessment unit having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts, volume of the accounts, doubts about the correctness of accounts, multiplicity of transactions in the accounts or specialised nature of business activity of the assessee, and the interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that il is necessary to do so, it may, upon recording its reasons in writing refer the case to the National Faceless Assessment Centre stating that the provisions of sub- section (2A) of section 142 may be invoked and such case shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sub- section (7) (2) The faceless assessment under sub-section (1) shall be made in respect of such territorial area, or persons or class of persons, or incomes or class of incomes, or cases or class of cases, as may be specified by the Board (3) The Board may, for the purposes of faceless ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Board; (v) such review units, as it may deem necessary to facilitate the conduct of faceless assessment, to perform the function of review of the income determination proposal assigned under sub-clause (b) of clause (xvi) of sub-section (1), which includes checking whether the relevant and material evidence has been brought on record, relevant points of fact and law have been duly incorporated, the issues requiring addition or disallowance have been incorporated and such other functions as may be required for the purposes of review and the term review unit . wherever used in this section, shall refer to an Assessing Officer having powers so assigned by the Board. (4) The assessment unit, verification unit, technical unit and the review unit shall have the following authorities, namely- (i) Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director, as the case may be, (ii) Deputy Commissioner or Deputy Director or Assistant Commissioner or Assistant Director, or Income-tax Officer, as the case may be; (iii) such other income-tax authority, ministerial staff, executive or consultant, as may be considered necessary by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rated upon successful submission of response, the response shall be deemed to be authenticated; (v) the time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic record shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000); (vi) a person shall not be required to appear either personally or through authorised representative in connection with any proceedings before any unit set up under this section; (vii) in a case where a variation is proposed in the income or loss determination proposal or the draft order, and an opportunity is provided to the assessee by serving a notice calling upon him to show cause as to why the assessment should not be completed as per such income or loss determination proposal, the assessee or his authorised representative, as the case may be, may request for personal hearing so as to make his oral submissions or present his case before the income-tax authority of the relevant unit; (viii) where the request for personal hearing has been received, the income tax authority of relevant unit shall allow such hearing, through National Faceless Assessment Centre, which shall be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) transfer the case to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such case in accordance with sub-section (8); (b) where a reference has been received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-clause (1) of clause (a), he shall direct the Assessing Officer, having jurisdiction over the case, to invoke the provisions of sub-section (24) of section 142; (c) where a reference has not been forwarded to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner of Commissioner, having jurisdiction over the case, m a case referred to in sub- clause (1) of clause (a), the assessment unit shall proceed to complete the assessment procedure laid down in this section. t in accordance with the (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General, as the case may be, in-charge of National Faceless Assessment Centre may, at any stage of the assessment, if considered necessary, transfer the case to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such case, with the prior approval of the Boar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in clause (1) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000); 91[(la) electronic verification code means a code generated for the purpose of electronic verification n as per t the data structure and standards specified by the Principal Director General or Director General, as the case may be, in-charge of information technology;] (m) eligible assessee shall have the same meaning as assigned to in clause (b) of sub-section (15) of section 144C; (n) email or electronic mail and electronic mail message means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message, (o) hash function and hash result shall have the same meaning as assigned to them in the Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000); (p) Mobile app shall mean the application software of the Income-tax Department developed for mobile devices which is downloaded and installed on the registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provision of Sec. 144B of the Act that once after completion of assessment the faceless assessment unit transfer all the electronic record of the case to the assessing officer having territorial jurisdiction thereafter for all the other action the jurisdiction is vested with the assessing officer having territorial jurisdiction and the PCIT having such territorial jurisdiction. The provision of Section 263 is invoked after the completion of the assessment on examination of record of any proceedings under the Act, therefore, once the assessment record is transferred by the faceless unit to the assessing officer having territorial jurisdiction then no action u/s 263 of the Act is possible with the PCIT who was having jurisdiction of the faceless assessment unit. We further noticed that the faceless assessment unit does not pass the assessment order after obtaining the approval of PCIT and the PCIT in the faceless assessment system has only administrative supervisory on the functioning of faceless assessment unit till the completion of faceless assessment. 20. We find that the case law referred by the ld. Counsel are distinguishable on the fact from the case of the assessee. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dy.CIT, Range 1(3) vide ITA No. 3121/Mum/2013 dad 20.12.2013 is pertained to the different issue of the jurisdiction over the TPO which is different from the fact of the case of the assessee as we have already discussed in the case of Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, vide ITA No.4007/Mum/2010 AY: 2005- 06. The ld. Counsel also referred the case of Smt. Abha Bansal Vs. Pr.CIT, (Central) Gurgaon (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi Trib) we find that fact of the case are entirely different and it is pertained to the issue when the assessment order is passed after getting approval of JCIT u/s 153C, therefore, Pr.CIT has no jurisdiction to revise the order u/s 263 of the Act. However, in the case of the assessee assessment order was not passed with any specific approval of the PCIT faceless assessment. Therefore, this case law is not applicable to the case of the assessee. Similarly, the other case referred by the ld. Counsel are entirely different on fact and issue from the case of the assessee on the fact of completion of faceless assessment u/s 144B of the Act and thereafter exercising of revisional jurisdiction by the jurisdiction PCIT u/s 263 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
