TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order of u/sec.263 of the Act and also additional grounds. The assessment was made denova without considering the objections raised by the assessee. The issue in these two appeals are common in nature, hence these appeals are combined, heard together, and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. We take up appeal of assessment year 2010-2011 for adjudication. The assessee is in the business of building products and textiles and Return of income was filed on 22.09.2010 disclosing total income of :52,41,85,120/- and was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and determined tax demand of :3,89,36,420/-. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) was issued. In compliance to the notices the ld. Aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the same was claimed as deduction. But the Assessing Officer on the presumption believed subsidiary as Revenue in nature and added to retuned income and assessed total income at :58,53,17,060/- and raised demand. 4. Similarly for the assessment year 2011-12 the assessee filed return of income on 28.09.2011 with total income of :54,10,48,490/-. The Assessing Officer issued notice and in compliance to the notices the ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee appeared from time to time and made submissions and filed details. The Assessing Officer upon verification found that deprecation claimed is in excess in case of Air and Water pollution control equipments and made an addition of :52,41,671/- and similarly on energy saving disallow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e with the provisions of Sec.80IA of the I.T. Act''. and similarly issued notice for assessment year 2011-12 on the disallowance u/Sec 14A of the Act. In compliance to the show cause notices, the assessee filed written submissions alongwith evidences. On the first issue of Dividend Distribution Tax u/s.115 O the assessee filed proof of challans evidencing payment of Dividend Distribution Tax :36,82,098/- on 14.08.2009. On the second issue of ROC fees the assessee made submissions that Authorized capital of the company was increased from :5 crores to :20 crores and the amount :7,50,000/- was paid as ROC fees. The assessee company filed copy of board resolution, copy of form filed with ROC and copy of fees receipt. The increase in authorize....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lied his mind and accepted details on this issue and prayed for dropping of proceedings u/s.263 Act. 5. Upon submission of information, the Commissioner of Income Tax without verifying the correctness distinguished the judgments submitted by the assessee and relied on the findings of Malabar Industrial Cement Co. Ltd vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) and viewed that assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and issued directions to the Assessing Officer to enquire into the findings referred in Revision order and any other issue and cancelled the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 01.02.2013 and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment afresh. Similarly for the assessment year 2011-2012 issued s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 23.09.2013, the assessee has filed an appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The only issue arises that the order of Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 is without jurisdiction in treating the assessment denova. Since the issue of Sec.14A is a subject matter of appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the order of Commissioner of Income Tax u/sec 263 has to be modified. The assessee filed paper book and also relied on the decisions on the issue of jurisdiction and prayed the Tribunal to quash the Revision order. 7. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities and objected that the Commissioner of Income Tax need not give reasons fo....