TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....propriate cost be awarded to the assessee." 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Assessment was completed at income of Rs. 21,17,062/- through order dated 02.03.2015 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147. Subsequently, this order was revised by the Ld. CIT(A) by invoking the provision of Section 263 on the basis that the Assessing Officer failed to make enquiry in respect of M/s Vitrag Jewels accommodation, entry of Rs. 8,75,007/- to the Assessee. Thereby, the order dated 02.03.2015 is set aside for necessary action of making enquiries, verification etc. from Vitrag Jewels. Aggrieved by this, the assessee has come into appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri. P.C. Parwal vehemently urged that there is no ground for invoking the provisions of Section 263. He submitted that the impugned order is unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law. He further reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. The submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are reproduced as under:- "Submission:- 1. At the outset it is submitted that the Ld. CIT has jurisdiction to pass order u/s 263 only when the twin condition of the assessment order being....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 02.03.2015 where addition on account of alleged bogus purchases made from M/s JPK Trading India Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 18,53,480/- was made (PB 45-51). Prior to the date of this order, AO has the information about the purchases made from M/s Vitrang Traders. In appeal against the order u/s 143(3)/148 dt. 02.03.2015, the Ld. CIT(A) in its order dt. 19.11.2015 (PB 52-74) has held that the purchases so disallowed are entitled to deduction u/s 10B. This order was before the Ld. CIT when he passed the order u/s 263 dt. 14.03.2017. Thus, when this issue is already decided by the Ld. CIT(A), no jurisdiction vest with Ld. CIT to adjudicate the same u/s 263. In this connection reference can be made to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Sh. Arbuda Mills Ltd. 231 ITR 50 and CIT Vs. Jaykumar B. Patel 236 ITR 469. In these facts also, the order passed by Ld. CIT is illegal and bad in law. 4. without prejudice to above, the order passed u/s 263 is barred by limitation. This is for the reason that the order u/s 263 can be passed within 2 years from the end of the FY in which the order sought to be revised was made. Where the issue is not subject matter of reassessment, the period of l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed [ on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] by the Assessing Officer shall include-; (i) An order or assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner [or Deputy Commissioner] or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the [Joint] Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) An order made by the [Joint] Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or direction issued by the Board or by the [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Commissioner or] commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; (b) "record"[shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all] records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time or examination by the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner; (c) Where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject - matter of any appeal, [filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] the powers of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend [and shall be deeme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. Now, coming to the facts of the present case are that this is second round of litigation an earlier occasion Ld. CIT revised original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. This order was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was pleased to set aside the same. Thereafter, the AO proceeded to re-open the assessment proceedings and assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 148 of the Act was passed. Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to revise this order on the ground that the AO failed to make enquiry in respect of purchases made from M/s Vitrag Jewels (Surat). It is pertinent to mention here that the Assessment was re-opened on the basis that the purchases made from M/s JPK Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. was bogus. In our view when the issue related to bogus purchases is re-opened, the AO should not confine itself to a single party. In re-opened proceedings as the issue of purchases was re-opened and this issue was also subject matter of original proceedings. Hence, the issue related to verification of purchases merged with the re-opened proceedings, where admittedly issue of bogus pu....