TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of transportation and financing. For A.Y.2008-09 return of income was filed declaring total income at Rs. NIL. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 23.08.2010 determining the assessee's total income at NIL. 3. The C.I.T. in exercising his powers u/s 263 of the Act was of the view that the aforesaid order of the assessment passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the following reasons : "i) Dividend income for Rs. 5,018/- was claimed to be exempted by the assessee. Relatable expenditure for earning such dividend income was calculated to Rs. 1,000/- and only Rs. 4,018/- was claimed as exempted on account of Dividend income and the same was allowed by the A.O. Howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and circumstances of the case. 2. That without prejudice to the legality of proceedings as above the C.I.T. has erred in holding that - (i) Loss on sale of only car was wrongly allowed by A.O. while passing order u/s 143(3) of the Act. (ii) That the AO has not looked into disallowance u/s 14A and that assessing officer is bound to adopt Rule 8D in all cases. 3. That the assessee/appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any or both the above grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal." 5. The learned counsel for the assessee in respect of ground no.1 submitted that the Asst. order in this case was passed u/s 143(3) on 23-08-2010 after due scrutiny and prolonged hearing. When the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....02.2013 was signed by A.C.I.T.(HQ)-XXI, Kolkata and not by C.I.T. The question regarding validity of the order passed u/s 263 of the Act when the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act is not signed and issued by C.I.T. and had come for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of Bardhman Co-op Milk Producers' Union Ltd. Vs CIT, Burdwan (supra). This Tribunal on identical facts as in the present case has held as follows :- "4. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record and we find that delay of 290 days in filing in these cases has been attributed to mistake on the part of assessee's counsel. The counsel has clearly admitted the mistake on his part. When the delay in filing of these a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on this account. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record. We find that Section 263(1) of the Act provides as under:- "The CIT may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed by the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing fresh assessment." Now we can also refer to the notice u/s. 263 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-tax to issue notice. It is also relevant to add that pleas can be raised only out of the judgment passed by the Tribunal or other authorities, but the plea, which was not raised at any stage, cannot be raised for the first time before this Court. No other arguments have been advanced in respect of other questions framed in the memo of appeal." 8. Similarly, we note that in the case of Satish Kr. Keshari (supra), the Tribunal had held that when the notice u/s. 263 of the Act was not under the seal and signature of Ld. CIT and suffered for want of details on the basis of which Ld. CIT came into conclusion that the order of Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 263 ....