TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 1106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by Id assessing officer. 2 Without prejudice to ground of appeal no. 1. Ld CIT is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in invoking the provision of section 263 on the proposal of Id assessing officer. 3. Without prejudice to ground of appeal no. 1 and 2, the learned CIT without appreciating the correct facts of the case and examining the submissions of the appellant company during 263 proceedings is not justified on law and facts and circumstances of the case in setting aside the issue to Id assessing officer for further investigating the issue under the circumstances that as per provision of section 263 only Id Commissioner has the powers to investigate on the issue for which provision of section 263 is invoked.. 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee had filed his return of income on 30.03.2013, pertaining to the AY 2012-13, declaring income of Rs. 21,42,580/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was made, thereby the income as disclosed by the assessee was accepted. Thereafter, on the basis of audit objection, the Assessing Officer initiate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT is in accordance with law and same may be upheld. 7. We have heard the Ld. CIT DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. Pr.CIT has revised the order by observing as under:- "3. I have considered the assessment order, written submission filed by the Ld. A.R. of the assesses. Ld. A. R. of the assessee has not filed any explanation about the non filing of rent agreement and loan taken against the property C-207, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi-110007, against which interest of Rs. 23,92,809/- has been claimed. From the records, it is very clear that the AO has not investigated the case properly and also not applied his mind on the documents filed by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings. Instead of filing any explanation on this issue, Ld. A.R. of the assessee is raising the issue that notice u/s 154 was issued and also raising the issue that on the basis of audit observations, action u/s 263 cannot be taken. I have considered this issue and observed that it is true that this mistake was initially raised by the audit party, however, Ld. AO has applied his mind and observed that the AO, at the time of passing the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o stated that all supporting evidences were furnished before the Assessing Officer. It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer had initiated rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act, at the instance of audit party and after making necessary enquiry, he dropped the proceedings. Therefore, there was no justification for initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. 8.1. In the present case as can be seen from the underlined portion of the order of the Commissioner, the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act were initiated on the basis of the opinion of the Assessing Officer which is contrary to the requirements of section 263 of the Act which mandate the concerned Ld.Pr.CIT has to be of the opinion that the assessment order is erroneous so far prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. For the sake of effective adjudication, section 263 of the Act is reproduced hereunder:- "263. (1) The 67[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, 70[National Tax Tribunal], the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.-In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this se....