TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecided in all these appeals is as to whether the ld CIT had validly invoked his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is a limited company belonging to 'Shalimar Group' deriving income from manufacture and selling of poultry feeds. The assessee has been filing its return of income on a regular basis u/s 139(1) of the Act and assessments were duly framed u/s 143(3) of the Act in the normal course. A search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the business premises of the assessee at 17B & C, Everest House, 46C, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata - 700071 on 13.12.2012. Panchanamas were drawn in the name of persons including the assessee. The following valuables and documents were found / seized during the course of search : Address of the premises where search was conducted Cash Jewellary Identification Mark of the documents seized Found (Rs.) Seized (Rs.) Found (Rs.) Seized (Rs.) 17B & C, Everest House, 46C, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata700071 32,67,500/- 39,00,000 NIL NIL SPG/1 to SPG/13 and SPG/HD/1 5. The following assessments fall under the category of una....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 24.8.2016 and CIT vs Veerprabhu Marketing Limited reported in 73 taxmann.com 149 (Calcutta) . Accordingly it was pleaded that the order of the ld AO cannot be termed as erroneous warranting revision u/s 263 of the Act. 7. With regard to the show cause notices issued for the Asst Years 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12, they were issued only on the aspect of additional depreciation on plant and machinery and rate of depreciation on lorries, which does not emanate from any of the seized documents found during the course of search. Hence it was pleaded that the order passed by the ld AO could not be termed as erroneous warranting revision u/s 263 of the Act. With regard to the show cause notice issued for the Asst Year 2009-10 on the issue of understatement of sales , apart from the aforesaid two common issues, the ld CIT placed reliance on the seized documents marked as SHLA-4 from pages 2 to 105 and SPG-2 from pages 18 to 20 as the incriminating documents found during the course of search. The assessee replied before the ld CIT that the seized document marked as SHLA -4 from pages 2 to 105 contians only sales bills relating to sales made by the assessee company to M/s Shalimar Hatcher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,73,797/- Total sale of feed & feed ingredients 86,74,19,301/- 4 Shalimar Pellet Feeds Limited (Kolar, Karnataka) Breeding Farm Sale of hatching eggs 1,03,21,815/- Total sales to Shalimar hatcheries Ltd. 87,77,41,116/- Accordingly it was explained that there is absolutely no difference in sales figure as alleged by the ld CIT. The assessee replied before the ld CIT that the seized document marked as SPG-2 from pages 18 to 29 contains the trial balance of the assessee . 7.2. The assessee replied before the ld CIT that the seized document marked as SPG-2 pages 18 to 20 contains trial balance for the period from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013 which are part of regular books of accounts of the assessee and there is nothing incriminating therein. In any case, this seized document pertains to the Asst Year 2013-14 and cannot be termed as incriminating for the Asst Year 2009-10. 8. The ld CIT however ignored all the explanations and submissions made before him and observed that the ld AO had not made enquiries with regard to these seized documents and treated the order of the ld AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011-12 deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, the preliminary ground raised by the assessee on the issue of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act for the Asst Years 2008-09 to 2011-12 are allowed. ITA No. 952/Kol/2017 - Asst Year 2013-14 - Assessee Appeal 10. The first preliminary issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT had validly invoked his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is a private limited company belonging to 'Shalimar Group' deriving income from manufacture and selling of poultry feeds. A search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the business premises of the assessee at 17B & C, Everest House, 46C, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata - 700071 on 13.12.2012. The search took place during the year under appeal. The return of income for the Asst Year 2013-14 was filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 16,19,99,710/-. The ld AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.3.2015 determining the total income at Rs. 20,27,76,841/-. The ld AO denied the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act. 10.3. The ld CIT however ignored all the explanations and submissions made before him and observed that the ld AO having held in the assessment proceedings that the assessee is not engaged in manufacturing activity ought to have correspondingly withdrawn the claim of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act . Hence nonwithdrawal of the same constitutes an error in the order of the ld AO which also caused prejudice to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly he directed the ld AO to pass afresh assessment order in this regard. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1. That the Ld. PCIT erred in holding that the order of the AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the issue of claim of additional depreciation on Plant & Machinery u/s 32(1)(iia). The Ld. AO has conducted proper enquiry in that respect during the course of assessment proceedings. As such, exercising of the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the I.T. Act is bad in law, and the order passed u/s 263 needs to be quashed. Hence, the addition needs to be deleted. 2. That the Ld. PCIT was wrong in disallowing additional depreciation of Rs. 1,64,48,64....