2018 (5) TMI 1258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../AC,C-1, RJY/2014-15 dated 27.2.2015 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. Facts are in brief that the assessee is a Co-Operative bank engaged in the business of banking, filed a return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 admitting total income at Rs. Nil on 29.10.2007. The return filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2009 determining taxable income at Rs. 1,67,11,890/-. Subsequently, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on the assessee and in response to the notice, assessee filed return of income admitting gratuity amount paid of Rs. 7,50,000/-. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner in respect of bonus, interest on share capital, leave encashment as pointed out by the Ld. Commissioner relates to assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by order dated 31.12.2009, which cannot be raised as per sub clause (2) of section 263 of the Act and submitted that the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner has to be quashed. He also relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (2007) 75 CCH 0720 ISCC. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax. 6. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In this case, the A.O. has completed the assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) of the Act. We find that when there are certain omissions and commissions which appear to the Ld. Commissioner are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he has power u/s 263 of the Act to revise the order. In this case, the A.O. has reopened the assessment for the escapement of income and the same is offered for taxation and assessment is completed. We find that the order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 31.12.2010 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, on this count, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act dated 22.3.2013 is quashed. 9. So far as the second argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is concerned, we find that if t....