2019 (3) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... short the ld. AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"] dated 10.03.2014 for the Assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has agitated the validity of invoking revisionary jurisdiction by the ld CIT u/s 263 of the Act in the instant case by raising several grounds. The brief facts of this case are that the assessee is a foreign company engaged in rendering consultancy services and is assessed in the status of a non-resident. It had filed its original return of income for the Asst Year 2011-12 on 29.9.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 23,37,862/- u/s 115A of the Act claiming refund of Rs. 2,40,800/- and claimed certain receipts as non-taxable to the tune of Rs. 24,01,487/- (equivalent to 158094 Poland Curre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2012. 4. From the order sheet entries submitted before us and from perusal of the assessment records, it is evident that notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee calling for certain details in the years 2012 and 2013 respectively. In response thereto, the assessee filed a written submission dated 3.3.2014 filed on 5.3.2014 furnishing the following details :- a) Copy of revised return filed marked in separate annexure. b) Copy of acknowledgement received on filing the revised return marked in separate annexure. c) Copy of income tax computation along with the list of invoices marked in separate annexure. d) Copy of invoices marked as separate annexure. e) Copy of agreement in support of invoi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en cognizance by the ld AO while completing the assessment and accordingly no enquiry was conducted by the ld AO with regard to the income declared and exemption claimed thereon. The ld CIT concluded that there was complete lack of enquiry and non-application of mind on the part of the ld AO while framing the assessee by not verifying the revised return and the contents thereon. Hence the order passed by the ld AO was treated as erroneous in as much as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and order u/s 263 of the Act was passed by the ld CIT on 30.10.2015. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the rival submissions. At the outset, we find that there is absolutely no dispute on the taxable services ren....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made good the deficit in tax by paying self assessment tax of Rs. 5,815/- on 28.9.2012 before filing the revised return. We find that the assessee had duly disclosed under which section, the exemption is claimed in respect of non-taxable services portion in the return of income itself. Later the hard copy of the revised return was also filed by the assessee together with the note for claiming exemption which is enclosed in page 6 of the paper book reproduced supra. Moreover, the assessee had also brought all these facts before the ld CIT in response to show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act vide separate written submissions dated 15.10.2015 which are enclosed in pages 95 to 100 of the paper book. Hence even though there is an error in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evised return properly. In this regard, the reliance placed by the ld CIT on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl CIT reported in 99 ITR 375 (Del) would actually support the case of the assessee and not the revenue in the facts and circumstances of the case of the assessee. There is no incorrect assumption of facts and wrong application of law neither on the part of the ld AO nor has been pointed out by the ld CIT in his section 263 order. Hence it could be safely concluded that though not considering the revised return while completing the assessment on 10.3.2014 would make the order of the ld AO erroneous, it does not cause any prejudice to the interest of the revenue as all the requisite det....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment order dated 28th March 2008 was regularly passed. There is evidence to show that the assessing officer had required the assessee to answer 17 questions and to file documents in regard thereto. It is difficult to proceed on the basis that the 17 questions raised by him did not require application of mind. Without application of mind the questions raised by him in the annexure to notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act could not have been formulated. 88. The Assessing Officer was required to examine the return filed by the assessee in order to ascertain his income and to levy appropriate tax on that basis. When the Assessing Officer was satisfied that the return, filed by the assessee, was in accordance with law, he was under no ob....