TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars and assessments were completed u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) determining the total income for different assessment years, the details of which are as under : Assessment Year Order u/s.143(3)/date Order u/s.153A/143(3)/dt. Order u/s.154/dt. 2004-05 4,53,79,410/- dt.29-12-2006 24,36,62,863/- dt.29-12-2011 25,67,75,890/- dt.01-06-2012 2005-06 3,23,98,154/- dt.30-03-2002 49,64,59,790/- dt.29-12-2011 - 2006-07 30,52,31,698/- dt.19-12-2008 77,32,49,820/- dt.29-12-2011 - 2008-09 - dt.88,40,92,836/- 29-12-2011 - 2009-10 - 52,54,79,716/- dt.29-12-2011 - 2010-11 - 59,44,01,256/- Dt.29-12-2011 - 3. Subsequently, the Ld.CIT examined the records and noted that the assessee has exempt income in the form of dividend income of Rs. 7,17,12,277/-, Rs. 1,33,79,236/- and Rs. 1,19,42,071/- for A.Yrs. 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. Therefore, provisions of section 14A are applicable. However, the Assessing Officer has not disallowed any expenditure u/s14A. Therefore, prima-facie, these orders of the Assessing Officer for the above years are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anner the order of the learned assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue inspite of the speaking order being passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act; (a) appreciating that on all the grounds on which revision proceedings have been initiated, the appellant has already made adequate submissions and which are duly considered by the learned assessing officer. 2. That on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned CIT has erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act and passing the order of revision under that section merely on change of opinion on all the issues raised in revision proceedings, which were duly considered by the learned assessing officer while framing the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds of appeal, that on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned CIT has erred in passing the order u/s 263 on those issues for which no incriminating material was found during the course of search and thus, these issues were beyond the scope of adjudication by the learned assessing officer and even learned Commissioner. 4. The appellant craves l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2000 order dated 06-08-2012, has held that assessment order approved by the Addl.CIT u/s.153D cannot be subjected to revise u/s.263 of the I.T. Act. He accordingly submitted that since in the instant case also the Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) after obtaining the approval of the Addl.CIT u/s.153D of the I.T. Act, therefore, the Ld.CIT has no power to revise the said order u/s.263 of the I.T. Act. 10. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Yrs. 2004-05 to 2010-11 vide ITA Nos. 1318 to 1324/PN/2013 and 1389 to 1391/PN/2013 and 1408 to 1410/PN/2013 order dated 02-05- 2016 submitted that the issue relating to disallowance of expenditure u/s.14A and the depreciation on assets of Hyderabad Unit have been decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, even on merit also, the CIT is not justified in invoking the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the I.T. Act. 11. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and supported the order of the Ld.CIT. He submitted that the provisions of secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pproval of the Addl. CIT and their Lordships have held that the Assessing Officer was fully alive about the facts of the case and that is why he got necessary approval of the Addl. CIT before completing the assessment orders for all the assessment years and once that is not disputed by the Revenue, then the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax would not be justified in interfering in the approval according by the Addl. CIT for framing the assessment order and thus there was no case for setting aside the assessment order for the assessment years in question." 14.1 We find the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CH. Krishna Murthy Vs. ACIT vide ITA No.766/Hyd/2012 order dated 13- 02-2015 following the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mehtab Alam (Supra) held that CIT(A) is not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 when the order has been passed in terms of section 153D of the Act. 14.2 We find the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Trinity Infra Ventures Ltd. (Supra) had an occasion to decide an identical issue and it held that the assessment order approved by the Addl.CIT u/s.153D cannot be subject to revision u/s.263 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s issue are dismissed. 168.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press ground of appeal No.7 regarding disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of sales promotion expenses because of smallness of the amount. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed." 17. Since the Assessment Years involved are A.Yrs. 2004-05 to 2006-07 Rule 8D is not applicable. So far as disallowance of administrative expenditure is concerned, the same is debatable issue in the instant case considering the totality of the facts of the case since the entire dividend is from investment in mutual funds. Further only adhoc disallowance of nominal expenditure has been sustained by the Tribunal. We therefore are of the opinion that the Ld.CIT was not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 of the I.T. Act on the issue of disallowance u/s.14A 18. Similarly, the issue relating to depreciation on assets of Hyderabad Division has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee for A.Y. 2004-05 onwards by observing as under : "161. After hearing both the sides, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The AO had disallowed the depreciation on the ground that the assessee has....