AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 164
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."1 Because the CIT(E) has erred in law and facts in holding that in assessment order dated 30.03.2016. Allahabad was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of Section 263 and the passing the impugned order directing the "Assessing Officer" shall make a fresh assessment after allowing the assessee due opportunity of being heard." 2. Because the direction for fresh assessment as per para 6 of the order dated 28.02.2018 as has been impugned in the present appeal, is wholly unenforceable in law as the subject matter of the assessment order dated 30.03.2016 itself is a subject matter of appeal before the first appellate authority which is pending for adjudication as on date. 3. Because merely th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djudicator and had committed an error, which amount to failure of enquiry is contradictory as the regular assessment order dated 30.03.2016 itself is based on enquiry made by the "Assessing Officer" 6. Because the twin condition laid down by the statue under the provisions of section 263 having not been fulfilled, the order dated 28,02,2018/- passed by the CIT (E) is bad and the same is liable to be quashed. 7. Because the order dated 28.03.2018 is based on erroneous and considerations and the same is not sustainable either on facts or in law. 8. Because in any case the ex-parte order dated 28.02.2018 passed by CIT (E) is completely bad as the same has been made without giving due and proper opportunity of being h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Revenue. The Commissioner also observed that the AO erred in not charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The commissioner accordingly issued a show-cause notice u/s 263 on 21.02.2018 and fixed the date of hearing on 28.02.2018. The Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 28.02.2018 thereby the assessment order was set aside by holding the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in as much as the AO has completed the assessment without proper application of mind and examination of the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act in respect of anonymous donations, that the assessment has not been completed in accordance with provisions of section 13(7) of the Act and the AO failed to make proper enquiry to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow cause and there was no further notice or opportunity was granted by the CIT(E) to the assessee but the impugned order was passed on the same date. Therefore, the impugned order was passed in a haste without giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachhan 384 ITR 200 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that opportunity of hearing prior to finalization of order under section 263 is a condition precedent. Therefore, not granting of appropriate opportunity of hearing amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the impugned order may be set aside and assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and without charging the interest under section 234A and 234B which is mandatory and consequential. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He has pointed out that since the Assessing Officer has not charged the income by considering the provisions of section 13(7) of the Income Tax Act therefore, the assessment order suffers from error which has resulted loss of Revenue. 5. The learned DR has submitted that the alleged record of donation as maintained by the assessee is unverifiable because the assessee has not produced any supporting evidence or document to show particulars of the donors including their address is on the basis of any documentary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner opined that the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) was not made in accordance with the provisions of law and prima facie erroneous and prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. He has also noted the fact that the Assessing Officer has not charged the interest under section 234A and B of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) issued the show cause notice on 21st February, 2018 and fixed the hearing on 28th February, 2018. The assessee did not appear before ld. Ld. CIT(E) on the date of hearing viz. 28.02.2018 fixed by the ld. CIT(E). The impugned order was passed by the CIT(E)on the very same day i.e. 28th February, 2018 whereby the assessment order was set aside and Assessing Officer was directed to re-....