TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 7,64,02,294/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company had filed revised computation of its income at Rs. Nil after claiming deduction u/s.80IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,44,39,344/-. The assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was completed on 30.12.2016 assessing total income at Rs. 5,82,73,571/- after disallowance of claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act of Rs. 4,44,39,344/- and other disallowances. 3.1. On subsequent examination of case records, it was observed by the Ld. Pr. CIT that the company was deriving income from letting out of property as well as construction activity. In the year under consideration, the company had offered an income of Rs. 2,93,68,495/- on account of letting out of house properties of Business centre and Kothrud properties. The same was revised to Rs. 75,28,744/- before finalization of the assessment by filing revised computation. 3.2. On perusal of the same, it was evident that the revised computation, gross total income before Chapter-VI deduction was Rs. 4,44,39,344/- as against Rs. 7,64,02,293/-. Thus, the total income was shown less by Rs. 3,19,62,949/-. One of the main heads where income was reduced was house....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Page 23 of the assessment order. It was patently a mistake in the original computation which was rectified in the revised computation, considered and accepted by the AO after verification. 5. A perusal of the notice u/s 263 reveals that at the end of Para 2, the Hon. PCIT observed that "no explanation nor any valid reason has been offered for the drastic fall in returned income. The issue has not been examined by the AO". 6. Both the aforesaid observations are factually incorrect. Attention is invited to submissions dated 14.11.2016 (Page 12 to 13 of Paper Book) and dated 23.12.2016 (Page 14 of Paper B9ok) where this issue has been brought out and explained on a query by the AO. 7. The notice further concludes in Para 3 that the "order appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as the AO has not made verification and proper application of mind". 8. This observation about the AO's application of mind is totally incorrect as is evident from the submissions made before the AO as also from Para 8, 8.1 and 8.1.1 of the assessment order where he has considered the revised computation. 9. Furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... b) The Hon. PCIT's order u/s 263 does not deal with and pass a speaking order on the contentions raised in 263 proceedings but cryptically concludes - "Though the AR claimed that these facts were examined & accepted by AO, that there is no record of the same in the Assessment folder". (Ground No.2) c) The Hon. PCIT's order u/s 263 suffers from a legal infirmity in as much as it sets aside the order for being framed de-novo after considering issues which issues have already been examined by the AO as also brought out in the assessment order and as such amounts only to a difference of opinion. (Ground No.3) d) The Hon. PCIT's order does not exhibit any satisfaction or conclusion on the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. (Ground No.4) e) Reliance is placed on the following decisions which are a part of the Case Law Compilation (CLC): a) Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay v. CIT (ITA No. 1314/Kol/2019) [Para 29 to 31 at Pages 29 & 30 of CLC] b) Latur District Central Co-op Bank Ltd. V. PCIT (ITA No. 164&628/PUN/2019) [Refer Para 10 at page 37 & Para 21 at Page 42 of CLC] c) CIT v. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 3,15,50,560/-. 7.1 When we peruse the order of assessment, we find there is no discussion at all as rightly pointed out by the Ld. DR on this very fact regarding the difference in figures in the original return and corrected computation. In the entire order of the Assessing Officer, he has only extracted the submissions of the Ld. AR, extracted the original return and revised computation and finally accepted them without any application of his mind. The case laws relied on by the Ld. AR has been considered by us and in these decisions, the legal principle common is that whenever the Quasi-Judicial Authority is making any decision on the given facts, there must be nexus between the reasons given by the Quasi-Judicial Authority with regard to the documents on record for which finally he arrives at that decision. The decision must reflect the reasoning of the Officer. By plain reading of the decision one should understand how the author has arrived at a particular conclusion. The thought process should be reflected therein. In this case in the assessment order, the entire exercise is missing. Merely extraction of submissions cannot justify that the Assessing Officer has applied....