TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 988
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) was justified in annulling the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act on 06.12.2017 on the ground that the H'ble ITAT has quashed the proceedings u/s.263 of the Act which is subject to adjudication before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.C.I.T. (A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that the decision of the H'ble ITAT quashing the proceedings u/s.263 of the Act is not accepted by the Department and appeal u/s.260A has been filed by the Department against the said order. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the following grounds of appeal are also raised: 3, "Whether ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of assets of Rs. 5,17,82,414/- credited to the P&L A/c. under the head miscellaneous receipts as not liable to tax and correspondingly reduced sale proceeds thereof amounting to Rs. 5,86,19,472/- from the block of assets for the purpose of depreciation and reduced the depreciation claim accordingly. By claiming wrong claim in originally and subsequently reducing it during the course of assessment proceedings is indicative of the fact that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars which would attract the provisions of Sec.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.C.I.T. (A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that, the Pr.CIT in the order u/s.263 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of financial services and filed the return of income on 29.09.2012 with total income of Rs. Nil and current year loss of Rs. 11,93,01,363/-.The assessee company has filed the revised return of income on 29.03.2014 with higher claim of TDS. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3 of the Act on 24.03.2015 with assessed total loss of Rs. 8,89,70,396/-. Subsequently, the Pr.CIT invoked the provisions of Sec. 263 of the Act and revision order dated 31.03.2017 was passed setting aside the assessment order dated 24.03.2015 and directed the A.O to adjudicate afresh with directions. Against the order u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee has filed an appeal with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....material placed before it, rightly set- aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Act, as not sustainable. Accordingly, the assessee's appeal is allowed as the consequential order passed under Section 143(3), read with Section 263 of the Act does not survive for consideration as having become infructuous. No exception can be found with the reasoned order passed by the ITAT." 5.4 In the case of Yes Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (I.T.A. No. 1100/Mum-2014) (Order dated 28.09.2015, the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal has held that: "2. The section and the subsection under which the assessment is made makes .z!dear that the original assessment order was set aside by the, CIT invoking the powers conferred upon him by the provisions o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5.6 In the light of the discussions in para 5.1 to- para 5.5, I annul the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 06.12.2017 u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act. In the result, ground of appeal No. 1 is allowed." 4. Aggrieved with the Ld.CIT(A) order, the revenue has filed the appeal with the Hon'ble Tribunal. At the time of Hearing, the Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in annulling the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act relying on the Hon'ble Tribunal decision. Further, the Ld.DR emphasized that the revenue has not accepted the decision and the order of the Hon'ble tribunal is contested before the higher forums. Contra, the Ld. AR supported the order of the CIT(A) and filed the paper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplication of law or wrong assumption of facts and therefore the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the PCIT is not proper and as per the provisions of the section itself. We are of the considered opinion that in the present case the AO has specifically called for explanation from the assessee on all points during the course of assessment proceeding and thereafter has taken a possible view. Moreover, it is not necessary for the AO to give detailed findings or elaborate in the assessment order on each and every issue which has been examined during the course of scrutiny proceedings. Besides, the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the various case laws referred to by the ld AR discussed briefly hereinabove w....