TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 720
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncipal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in invoking the provisions of Section 263 in the appellants case in holding that the assessment order dated 22.03.2016 made by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The appellant prays that the order of the Hon'ble Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 may kindly be quashed and the assessment order of the Ld. AO dated 22.03.2016 may be restored. Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in directing Ld. AO to make addition of US$ 17,95,426 (INR 8,07,94,197) on prote4ctive basis, when the same was already assessed to be taxable in the hands of Estate of Late....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the power u/s 263 of the I.T. Act. It was noticed that the assessee was having an account in HSBC Bank a/c., Geneva Account No. BUP-SIFIC-PER-ID-5090162310 to the profile client code No.5091334050 of M/s. Yeel Investment Inc. The assessee disclosed that the amount was lying in the hands of the Estate of Late Shri V.C. Mehta and paid taxes. Assessment was made in the year 2007-08 u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2015 and for the A.Y. 2006-07 u/s 148 of the Act on 04.11.2015 adding undisclosed income to the tune of Rs. 1.58 crore and Rs. 8 crore respectively on account of Foreign Bank Account. The protective assessment was made in the assessee's case for the A.Y. 2007-08 at the peak value to the tune of Rs. 9.57,07,316/-. As per the note, the pea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and taxed in the hands of Mr. Vrajlal C. Mehta on substantive basis for the A.Y. 2006-07, hence, order is not liable to be sustainable of in the eye of law. It is also argued that the said amount has further been added in the case of father, son's wife and in the case of the wife and in this regard the matter has been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA. No. 3672/M/2016 in the case of wife titled as Smt. Devaunshi Anoop Mehta Vs.PCIT Central-2, Mumbai. It is specifically held that the amount was belonging to Smt. V.C. Mehta which has already been taxed. Therefore, the order u/s 263 of the Act is wrong and has been order to be set aside. On the other hand, the Ld. representative of the department has refuted the contention. We have heard the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Smt. Devaunshi Anoop Mehta on protective basis. However, to make more convenient we are referring the relevant part of the order passed by the Tribunal for ready reference :- "We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the records. A specific question was asked to the Ld. A.R. that whether any appeal has been filed by the legal heirs/executors of the estate of late Shri V.C. Mehta challenging the above additions made by the AO in the hands of late Shri V.C. Mehta. At this, the Ld. A.R. has submitted that though an appeal has been filed but that has been filed relating to certain other grounds. However, the estate of late Shri V.C. Mehta have owned up of the balances lying in the HSBC Bank account and have paid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,90,154 paid by the appellant on 30.03.2012 on account of self assessment tax. The appellant prays that the action of Ld.AO may kindly be treated as bad in law and the credit of such paid self assessment tax may kindly be directed to be allowed. Although such payment was made for AY 2012-13, since part of income has been assessed to tax for Assessment Year under appeal, it is imperative that the corresponding part of credit for tax is also allowed this year. Ground No. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in wrongly calculating the amount of interest payable on account of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant prays that the calculation of Ld. AO may kindly ....