TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 149
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... share multiplied by 4,510 Nos. of shares allotted coming to Rs. 27,51,100 has been added as above by the Id. AO. The said valuation and the consequential addition has been disputed by the Appellant in the Appeal in Form No.35 e-filed before the Id. CIT (A), Sambalpur on 22.01.2017 vide Acknowledgement No.598992731220117, which is now pending for disposal. 4. That the Id. Pr. CIT, in the impugned order u/s.263, has revised the valuation of the Equity Shares @ Rs. 708 per share as against Rs.Rs. 739 adopted by the Id. AO and consequently directed the Id. AO to modify the assessment order dt.29.12.2016 by making a further addition of Rs. 1,39,810 (Rs. 31 per share x 4,510 shares) u/s.56(2)(viib) in addition to Rs. 27,51,100 already added by the Id. AO on the same ground. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of assessment made u/s. 143(3) could not be termed or held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue within the meaning of sec. 263(1). 6. That the valuation of shares being the only subject matter of the appeal pending before the Id. CIT(A), the Pr. CIT has no jurisdiction to revise the valuation of the same share....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee, therefore, the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and he also relied on many case laws as incorporated in his order. 3. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Pr.CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. Ld. AR of the assessee before us has filed written submissions which reads as under :- Brief note of submissions of the Appellant Revision Order is ante dated and barred by limitation (Ground No.2) 1. That the above Appear has been filed against the order dt. 30.03.2019 of the id Pr. CIT made u/s. 263(1) modifying the assessment order dt. 29.12.2016 made u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the id. AO with a direction to make further addition of Rs. 1,39,810 u/s.56(2)(viib) in addition to Rs. 27,51,100 already added by the id. AO on the same around and to give effect to his order latest by 30.06.2019 as mandated U/S.153(5). The said order u/s. 263(1) was issued and served upon the undersigned AR of the Appellant at Bargarh on 30.04.2019. 2. That as per sec.263(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961, no order u/s.263(1) shall be made after the expiry of two years from the end o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O Nos 30 to 32/201 1, Order dated 22,12.2011. (Page 14 to19) d. ACIT v. Dn Tulsi Prasad Mohapatra & Dr. (Smt.) Debadutta Mallick ITA NOS. 412 & 413/CTK/2011 and CO. Nos. 27 & 2B/CTK/2011, Order dated 17.02.2012. (Page 20 to 24) e. Sri Trinath Chowdary & Others v» ACIT IT(S$)A Nos. 44 to 46/CTK/2016, 3, B to 10, 13 & 14/CTK/2017, Order dated 27.09.20IB. (Page 25 to38) Reassessment order dated 30.03,2015 served on 06.34*2015, after expiry of period of limitation on 31.03.2015, held barred by limitation, Pankaj Sharma v. DOT ITA NOS. 3556 & 3557/DEL/2015, Order dated 08.02.2019. (Page 39 to 51) AO dated 28.03.2013 served on 18.04.2013, after expiry of period of limitation on 31.03.2013, held barred by limitation and thus, null and void. 4. In view of the above case laws, the impugned Revision Order dated 30.03.2019 served on 30.04.2019 is ante dated and barred by limitation. Validity of Revision Order during pendency of appeal before CIT(A) against the impugned assessment order on the same issue (Ground Nos.3 to 6) 1. Return of income filed by the Appellant has been selected for LIMITED SCRUTINY through CASS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the power to examine the correctness of the order under appeal, when an appeal has, in fact, been filed in respect of the same matter and was pending before the appellate authority. This has been so held by the Hon'ble Madras Hugh Court in the case of CWT v. Sampathmal Chordia, Executor of Late Neni Kavur Bai (2002) 256 ITR 440 (Mad,) (Page 63)r where the revision has been held to be invalid as the subject-matter of the revision was the same as that of the pending appeal as Interpreted in Aermns Infrastructure & Technology ltd, v. CZT (2004) 271 ITR GBP5 (Demi) (Page 64), 5. in the Ground No.3 of the appeal filed against the assessment order, the Assessee has also contended that the said order is barred by limitation and non est in law, being served on 12.01.2017, after the expiry of limitation u/s.153 on 31,12.2016* Based upon the foregoing submissions, the said order is most likely to be quashed in appeal and consequently, the said assessment order will loose its existence for invoking revisionary power u/s. 263. Revision on mere chancre of opinion or possibility of a second view f Ground No.7 1. There are two limbs in Section 56(2)(viib) of the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) X43.XTR S3 (SC) (Page 66 to 68). Non-applicability of See«56f 21fvfi&) as per explanatory memorandum to Finance Act 2012 The Appellant does not come within the mischief of the above provision as manifest from cursory look to explanatory memorandum to Finance Act, 2012 by which the said provision was brought into the law and the share premium Is a clean money and so it is not covered within the provisions of SeCr56{2)(vii&}, Legislative intent is to apply the said provision where money received is not clean and is unaccounted money received in garb of share premium where as nowhere it is case of revenue that stated money is not clean money, Reliance is placed upon the ITAT Delhi Bench order dated 03.01.2020 in the case of M/s, Clearview Healthcare Pvt Ltd, v. ITO m ITA No. 2222/Del/2019 (Page ). In addition to the above, he also submitted that the case of the assessee was subject to appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Pr.CIT was not justified to apply the revisonary powers as provided in the Income Tax Act. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following decisions :- i) ACC limited Cement, ITA No.3576/Mum/2019, order dated 08.07.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the account head share application money pending for allotment of Rs. 61 lakhs, which was standing as on 31.03.2013 and the AO has considered it as a liability, which has been challenged before the CIT(A) as stated supra in the grounds of appeal. Now, considering the arguments putforth by the ld. AR of the assessee that the Pr.CIT cannot exercise his jurisdictional power u/s.263 of the Act, if the assessee's appeal is pending before the CIT(A). It is also clear from the order sheet placed at page No.60 of the paper book, wherein it has been mentioned that the assessee had filed appeal before the CIT(A). To support this view, Explanation (c) to Section 263(1) of the Act, is reproduced hereunder :- Section 263. (1) Explanation (c) :- (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. Further the ld. AR of the assessee drew our....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... We have noted that the ld. CIT instead of verifying the facts and considering the contents of the reply of assessee straightway directed the AO by passing the following order: 6.2. On the issue of addition of interest under section 234D of Rs. 14.44 crore with book profit.: In this regard, it is observed that the interest charged under Income Tax Act including under section 234D towards withdrawal of excess refund is nothing but income tax and same is levied and accounted as such in accounts of Department, it is covered by explanation 1(a) under section 115JB (2) of the IT Act and therefore required to be added with Book Profit. 7. In nutshell, the AO is directed to pass the order as per provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 by making interest charged u/s 234D of Rs. 14.44 crores added to book profit. The AO is directed to give effect to the above mentioned order and issue demand notice. 13.We have further noted that in the reply to the show-cause notice, the assessee specifically contended that the assessee has already filed appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee also placed on record the copy of Form-35 [Appeal format before CIT(A)], wherein the assessee has raise....