TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal on record. 2. Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, the crux of the grievance of the assessee pertains to the assumption of revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax. 3. It is evident from record that the order passed u/s.263 of the Act by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax dated 22.03.2019 was directed against the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 29.12.2016. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has found the assessment order to be erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on four grounds: (A) Contravention of the provisions of Section 297 and 314 (1B) of the Company Act, 1956 : On verification of assessment re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee : It was noticed from the AIR transactions reported in the Individual Transaction Statement that the assessee company has sold immovable property involving transaction amount of Rs. 55,85,000/- on 10.02.2010. However, neither the details of this transaction nor of the income from capital gains are available on records. This issue has been communicated to the assessee vide notice u/s.263 of the Act dated 05.03.2019 and in reply, the assessee mentioned that there were no such transactions made by the company during the assessment year 2020-11. This issue was set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with directions to verify the veracity of this AIR transaction as reported in ITS by conducting necessary inquiry. (D) U....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 29.12.2016 as erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. We have perused the relevant documents on records and heard the rival contentions. We have also analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case and judicial pronouncements placed before us on record. In this case, the revisionary jurisdiction order passed u/s.263 of the Act by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax dated 22.03.2019 was against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 29.12.2016. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice at Page 106 of the factual paper book, the reasons recorded u/s.147 of the Act for issue of notice u/s.148 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct to the payments of remuneration to directors. These submissions were filed before the Assessing Officer who had examined and verified the same and had passed assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 29.12.2016 wherein he has accepted the original assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 21.03.2013 wherein total loss was at (-) Rs. 6,25,277/-. That thereafter, against this assessment order once again on the same issue, the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 22.03.2019 had assumed revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act alleging the said assessment order dated 29.12.2016 to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. The Ld. DR conceded to the fact that in the case of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....basis that some income had escaped assessment on the amount of remuneration to the directors since the assessee did not comply with Section 297 and 314(1B) of the Company Act, 1956. The assessee gave detailed reply to the Assessing Officer satisfying him that these provisions are not applicable in his case. The Assessing Officer therefore, stopped the re-opening proceedings and accepted the original assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Act with the total loss shown of (-) Rs. 6,25,277/- dated 29.12.2016 vide order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind and has not made any enquiry. 10. Now the next question arises, whether the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax in ex....