TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l income of Rs. 22,22,275 for the A.Y 2006-07 and Rs. 10,93,690 for the A.Y 2007-08. The AO called for certain information vide notices issued u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the I.T. Act. The assessee appeared through her representative and filed the information called for. After verifying the said information, the AO completed the assessment accepting the returned income of the assessee. The AO also observed that before the said search, the group was subjected to a search operation u/s 132 of the Act on 20.10.2005. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT exercising his power u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, perused the assessment orders for the A.Ys 2006- 07 and 2007-08 and observed that the assessee has declared the rental income at Rs. 7,00,172 only for the A.Y 2006-07 whereas the TDS certificate reflects the gross rental receipt at Rs. 9,36,383 and the corresponding TDS claim of the assessee was allowed by the AO. Similarly, for the A.Y 2007-08, the assessee had declared rental income at Rs. 2,52,304 as against the gross rental income as observed from the TDS certificate at Rs. 4,34,784 and the corresponding TDS claim of the assessee was allowed by the AO. Thus, according to the Pr. CIT, the additional amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of revenue. 2. The Ld. Pr. CIT (Central),erred in passing the order u/s 263 by forming mere change of opinion and without considering the fact that the original assessment had been completed u/s 143(3) rws 153C of the IT Act, 1961 after careful verification of all the information furnished. 3. The Ld. Pr. CIT (Central), ought to have properly appreciated that the assessment order should have been both erroneous and also there should have been loss to the Revenue in order to be able to revise the order u/ s 263 of the Act, but the CIT could not quantify as to what is the amount of loss to the revenue. 4. The Ld. Pr. CIT (Central), ought to have appreciated that even if the order is erroneous, it should have caused loss to the revenue by the AO's failure to apply the applicable law and not on failure to make lot of enquiries and investigations. 5. The Ld. Pro CIT (Central), ought to have appreciated the submissions of the assessee in the following judgment of Honorable Supreme Court of India in the case of MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2000)- 243-ITR -0083 -(SC). 6. The Ld, Commissioner of Income Tax(Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have not claimed any amount of TDS on the said income in their return of income. Whereas the same issue was examined by the AO at the time of completing the assessment u/ s 143(3) rws153C. 14. The Ld.Pr.CIT (Central), has erred in ignoring the submissions made by the assessee in respect to the claim of other 2/3rd share of rental income in the returns filed by Nama Nageswara Rao in his individual and HUF capacity. 15. The assessee may add, alter, or modify or substitute any other points to the Grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal". 5. Further, vide letter dated 22.01.2016, the assessee filed the following additional grounds of appeal: "16. The learned CIT (A) erred in revising the order u/s 143(3) rws 153C dated 28.03.2013 instead of order passed u/s 143(3) rws 153B dated 31.12.2007, since the issue involved for revision is covered by the order dated 31.12.2007. 17. The appellant may add, alter or modify or substitute any other point to the grounds of appeal at any time before or after the time of hearing of the appeal" 6. At the outset, it is noticed that the assessee is challenging the validity of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allowed to be sustained, then there would be two assessment orders for the same A.Ys assessing two different quantum of income for the very same A.Y. Therefore, we agree with the plea of the assessee that the CIT had erred in revising the order passed u/s 143(3) rws 153C of the Act dated 28.3.2013 instead of the order passed u/s 143(3) rws 153B dated 31.12.2007. 8. We have already observed that assessment order dated 31.12.2007 has already become final. Such being the position we agree with the contention of the assessee that the already settled facts cannot be disturbed by an order u/s 263 by revising a subsequent assessment order. Therefore, we allow the additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee. 9. Even otherwise, if it is to be held that the order which needs revision is the assessment order u/s 143 rws 153C of the Act dated 28.3.2013, even then, we find that the CIT has only held the assessment order to be erroneous without giving any finding that the assessment has also resulted in prejudice to the Revenue. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 0083, the CIT has to be satisfied with ....