2018 (10) TMI 1670

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....S.Sridhar represented on behalf of the Assessee, and Mr. S.Bharath represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee is a partnership firm, which is doing business of Real Estate and Construction. It was a submission that assessee had filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 08.09.2009 admitting 'Nil' income after claiming deduction u/s.80-IB of the Act. It was a submission that the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was originally completed on 29.12.2011, which was subject to a revision u/s.263 of the Act vide order dated 28.03.2014 wherein the Commissioner of Income Tax-III Chennai had directed the ld. Assessing Officer to complete the fresh assessment in accordance with law af....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....side order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act dated 30.03.2015. It was a submission that the revision u/s.263 as proposed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, was clearly on the basis of a change of opinion and re-appraisal of the same facts, which had been considered by the ld. Assessing Officer on two separate occasions, of which one was on account of revision u/s.263 on identical issues, revision order passed u/s.263 of the Act is liable to be quashed. 4. In reply, the ld.D.R vehemently supported the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-5. It was a submission that Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had the powers to revise any order u/s.263 of the Act, if the same was found to be erroneous and prejud....