9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. We draw force from the decision of Lark Chemicals Ltd. [ 2013 (9) TMI 959 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] as well as Indira Industries [ 2018 (6) TMI 840 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] both of which had considered in the case of Alagendran Finance Ltd. [ 2007 (7) TMI 304 - SUPREME COURT ] Accordingly, at the threshold of the jurisdictional issue, relating to impugned revisionary order barred by limitation, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the revisionary order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Devendra Jain, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Jayant Jhaveri, CIT, DR ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai, vide order no. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2023- 24/1063061178(1), dated 21.03.2024 passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) against the reassessment order passed by the National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B, dated 25.03.2022, for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The solitary issue involved in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17, it had shown total accumulation of Rs. 17,54,96,993/- u/s.11(2) for Assessment Year 2015-16. According to him, in the computation of income for Assessment Year 2016-17, assessee had claimed utilisation of accumulation amount of Rs. 15,95,41,824/- and remaining amount of Rs. 1,59,55,169/- was added back to the income of the assessee. Assessee then claimed accumulation of Rs. 19,00,00,000/- u/s.11(2) which included unutilised amount of Assessment Year 2015-16. He, thus formed a prima facie view that the re-assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. A show cause notice, dated 18.12.2023, was issued u/s. 263 of the Act by invoking revisionary proceedings. 4.1. Assessee furnished its reply explaining the claim of exemption towards accumulation along with documentary evidences. After considering the submissions made by the assessee, ld. CIT(E) drew his consideration that ld. Assessing Officer has not verified the said accumulation and application for the year under consideration for the purpose of the object of the trust for which the amount was set apart. He found that ld. Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lia substantial question of law on similar issue was dealt with. Ld. Counsel pointed out similarity in the facts of this case with the case of the assessee by referring to para 6 of this decision wherein it is stated that 6. On March 17, 2009, the Commissioner of Income-tax issued a show-cause notice to the respondent under section 263 of the Act seeking to revise the order dated June 28, 2006, passed during the reassessment proceeding. The issues raised in the above notice under section 263 of the Act sought to revise the issues decided not only in the order dated June 28, 2006, but also issues which were in fact accepted/assessed by order/intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. 5.4. Hon'ble Court observed that except the issue of non-genuine purchases, all other issues dealt with by the ld. CIT in order dated 30.03.2009 were not a subject matter of the assessment order passed on 28.06.2006 u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act. All the other issues on which ld. CIT sought to exercise jurisdiction u/s.263 were concluded by virtue of an intimation u/s.143(1) which admittedly was done beyond a period of two years prior to the show cause notice dated 14.03.2022 issued u/s. 263. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 263 and the order passed thereon are liable to be quashed, barred by limitation. 6. Per contra, ld. CIT DR emphasised on the fact that reassessment order u/s. 147 is dated 25.03.2022 and the impugned revisionary order u/s. 263 is dated 21.03.2024 which is within the prescribed time limit of two years and hence justified. 6.1. In the rebuttal, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to para 5 of the re-assessment order u/s. 147 to point out that ld. Assessing Officer had computed taxable income of the assessee by taking into consideration corpus donation as general donation. He also pointed out that section 147 contains that ld. Assessing Officer shall bring to tax, income which has escaped assessment, where he has reasons to believe and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which has come to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section. He thus laid emphasis that for any other income to bring it to tax in the proceedings u/s.147, it has to come to his notice in the course of the said proceedings itself. Where the subject matter of revisionary proceedings u/s.263 has not come to the notice of the ld. Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
