TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1880
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relating to assessment year 2009-10. 3. The assessee in ITA No.596/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2009-10 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned CIT erred in passing order u/s 263 of the I.T. Act and setting aside the assessment order dt. 28.03.2013, passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C. Therefore, it is prayed to cancel the revision order passed u/s 263. 2. The learned CIT erred in holding that, no proper enquiries were carried out with respect to the seized/impounded material, inspite of the fact that the enquiries carried out by the A.O. in relation to the seized material were brought on record by the appellant, during the course of revision proceedings. Therefore, it is prayed to cancel the revision order passed u/s 263. 3. In any case the learned CIT erred in passing revision order u/s 263 with respect to the invalid assessment order passed in consequence of invalid Notice u/s 153C. Therefore, it is prayed to cancel the revision order passed u/s 263. 4. The assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal, which read as under:- A) That order passed u/s 263 is bad in law because underlying order passed u/s 153C and/or 143(3), is also bad in la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the course of search, incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee company were impounded from the searched premises and the provisions of section 153C of the Act were invoked and thereafter, assessment in the case of assessee was taken up. The Assessing Officer re-worked the income in the hands of assessee. The assessment order was passed with the prior approval of JCIT, Central Range, Nashik, obtained vide his letter dated 28.03.2013. The Commissioner was of the view that the order passed by Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the assessee under section 263 of the Act and various issues have been looked into. The Commissioner vide para 7 observed that the Assessing Officer while making assessment for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 had not carried out requisite enquiries and verification of various claims of assessee with regard to expenditure. Consequently, assessment orders passed were prejudicial in as much as erroneous to the interest of Revenue. Hence, the said assessment orders as per the Commissioner were required to be revised. Accordingly, the Commissioner set aside the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 153D of the Act, can the Commissioner invoke his revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the orders passed by Assessing Officer for all the years were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The plea of assessee before us is that once the order has been passed by Assessing Officer after obtaining approval of Additional CIT under section 153D of the Act, then the Commissioner has no power to exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 8. We find that similar issue of exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act in a case where assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act after obtaining approval of Additional CIT under section 153D of the Act, arose before the Tribunal in bunch of appeals in the case of Dhariwal Industries Limited Vs. CIT (supra). The Tribunal vide order dated 23.12.2016 observed as under:- "12. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the Ld.CIT and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch of the Tribunal in the case of Mehtab Alam (Supra) held that CIT(A) is not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 when the order has been passed in terms of section 153D of the Act. 14.2 We find the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Trinity Infra Ventures Ltd. (Supra) had an occasion to decide an identical issue and it held that the assessment order approved by the Addl.CIT u/s.153D cannot be subject to revision u/s.263 of the I.T. Act. The relevant observation of the Tribunal at Para 5.4 of the order reads as under : "5.4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153C was passed after getting approval of Addl. CIT under section 153Dof the I.T. Act and therefore such an assessment cannot be revised without revising the directions of the Addl. CIT under section 153D of the I.T. Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, has relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Ch. Krishna Murthy vs. ACIT, C.C.3, Hyderabad in ITA.No.766/Hyd/2012 dated 13.02.2015 and also the decision of Lucknow Bench of ITAT in the case of Mehtab Alam 288/Luck/2014 dated 18.11.2014 in support of this....