TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1538
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income filed by the assessee, though, was initially processed under section 143(1) of the Act, however, subsequently it was selected for scrutiny and in course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on the basis of AIR information available on record as well as other information made couple of adjustments to the returned income and accordingly completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28th November 2011, determining the total income at Rs. (-) 61,93,801. He also allowed carry forward of loss on house property amounting to Rs. 8,52,930 and business loss of Rs. 53,40,871. After completion of assessment as aforesaid, the Assessing Officer received information from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department that the assessee has made fictitious purchases from M/s. Vinay Trading Co. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 18th March 2014. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act on 30th March 2015, after making an addition of Rs. 82,039 on account of bogus purchases. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act, the revisional authority should have passed the impugned order under section 263 of the Act on / or before 31st March 2014, whereas, the impugned order under section 263 of the Act was passed on 30th March 2017. Thus, the order is barred by limitation. In support of such contentions, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:- i) CIT v/s Lark Chemicals Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 655 (Bom.); and ii) LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v/s PCIT, [2016] 388 ITR 135 (All.). 5. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, during the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has enquired into and examined all issues, including, the claim of depreciation on the building. In this context, he drew our attention to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act with annexure. He also drew our attention to the compliances made by the assessee from time to time with regard to the queries made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, he submitted, the Assessing Officer has allowed assessee's claim of depreciation after proper application of mind to the facts and material on record and being sati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed under section 263 of the Act is within the period of limitation prescribed under section 263(2) of the Act. He submitted, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has not revised the original assessment order but has revised the order passed under section 143(3) r/w 147 of the Act on 30th March 2015. Therefore, the revision order passed is within a period of two years. He submitted, since assessee's claim of deprecation was not examined by the Assessing Officer in the re-assessment order, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has correctly exercised his power under section 263 of the Act as the re-assessment order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In support of such contention, he relied upon the Third Member decision of the Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in case of Spencer & Co. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2012] 137 ITD 141 (Chh.). As regards the merits of the issue, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that as per section 38(2) of the Act it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to compute depreciation on the portion or part of the building used for the purpose of business and such determination has to be made by the Assessing Officer in a fair and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act or if the return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, then from the date of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. In this context, it is relevant to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court:- "We have considered the rival submissions. It is not disputed that save and except the issue of non-genuine purchases all other issues dealt with by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the order dated March 30, 2009, were not a subject matter of the assessment order passed on June 28, 2006, under section 143(3)/147 of the Act. All the other issues on which the Commissioner of Income-tax is seeking to exercise the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act were concluded by virtue of an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act which admittedly was done beyond a period of two years prior to the notice dated March 17, 2009, issued under section 263 of the Act. Section 263(2) of the Act provides that no order would be made in exercise of the jurisdiction under section 263(1) of the Act after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised ....