2019 (2) TMI 810

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' in short) vide F.No.Pr.CIT-1/VZP/263/1/2015- 16 28.03.2017 and F.No.Pr.CIT-1/VSP/263/15/2017-18 dated 29.03.2018 for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. Delay : There was a delay of 37 days in filing the appeal No.79/Viz/2018 for the A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee filed condonation petition giving reason for delay due to year end finalization of accounts. The assessee submitted that the order u/s 263 was received on 26.12.2017 and the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 24.02.2018 and it could be filed only on 02.04.2018 resulting in delay of 37 days. The delay was due to finalization of accounts in the month of February and March, general body meetings, dividend calculation and di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for revision and requested to drop the proposal. Not being convinced with the explanation of the assessee, the Ld.Pr.CIT held that the assessment made u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly set aside the assessment made u/s 143(3) with a direction to redo the assessment afresh as per law. 4. Against the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, assessments were completed u/s 143(3), after examining the details filed by the assessee the AO allowed deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Prima facie, from the order of the AO, the sole issue is with regard to deduction u/s 80P of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting the assessment. However, Pr.CIT was of the view that the assessing officer has not conducted proper enquiries and there was apparent error of reasoning and law but not specified the error committed by the AO and how it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Not conducting the proper enquiries or inadequate enquiry does not give jurisdiction to the CIT for taking up the case for revision u/s 263. The Pr.CIT should make out case that the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. There should be an income which is not brought to tax by AO for revision. The Pr.CIT except stating that proper enquiries were not conducted by the AO, did not specify how the order is erroneous and prejudici....