9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yond permissible jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). The order of Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) is not an erroneous order which is also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. As such, the order of Ld. PCIT is unlawful and deserves to be quashed. 2. That the very basis of notice u/s 263 issued by the Ld. PCIT being the report of ADIT (I&CI) and not the record of assessment proceedings called for examination was without sanction of law and as such the subsequent proceedings thereunder being unlawful the impugned revision order passed u/s 263 is a legal nullity and deserves to be quashed. 3. That the Ld. PCIT has erred on facts and in law in remanding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned as to what enquiry the Ld. AO was supposed to make in this year which he failed to make. As such too the impugned revision order passes by Ld. PCIT being perverse deserves to be quashed. 7. That in relation to the sublease of subject commercial plot accounted for as sale in AY 2013-14, no income was computable and was in fact computed by the Ld. AO in this year and as such there is no question of any recompilation thereof in this year. As such too the impugned revision order passes by Ld. PCIT being perverse deserves to be quashed. 8. That on the facts and in law the Ld. PCIT has erred in invoking provisions of section 43CA of the Act in respect of transfer of leasehold rights in subject commercial plot of land as Section 50C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or scrutiny through CASS. The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 21.5.2018 at assessed income (loos) of (-) Rs. 25,71,74,14,170/- after making additions / disallowances of Rs. 28,87,91,807/- under different heads. 3. In exercise of power vested under him under section 263 of the Act the Ld. PCIT perused and examined the records. He referred to the notice u/s. 263 of the Act issued to assessee and assessee's response thereto. He concluded as under:- "...11. In view of the judicial pronouncements discussed above and also in terms of Explanation 2(a) to sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act, an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against the order dated 03.06.2024 passed by NCLT. 6. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The record of proceedings show that since 08.08.2022, the matter is adjourning from time to time mostly on the written request of the Ld. AR. On 19.12.2024, when the matter was called out on Board, the Ld. AR again sought adjournment for a month's time, in view of his contentions raised as above. 8. We find that provisions contained under section 238 of "the Code" are having an overriding effect over all other Central and State statutes including Income Tax Act as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Monnet Ispat and Energ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
