TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for various steel manufacturing companies. The assessee company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 on 08.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 1,46,03,550/-. The case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee company in response to which compliance letters, submissions and copies of relevant documents were furnished by the assessee company. Assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was passed on 14.12.2018 determining total income at Rs. 1,47,86,650/-. 3. Subsequently, Ld. Pr. CIT Kolkata - 2 ('PCIT') invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act and issued a show caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or. 2. That the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law as well as in facts in setting aside the order U/s. 143(3) Dt. 14-12-2018 to the file of the Ld. AO to pass an appropriate order and in directing the Ld. AO to decide as per CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 Dt. 17-12-2015, in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no such directions were at all called for. 3. That the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law as well as in facts in not considering the decision of the Jurisdictional Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd. [224 Taxman 12(Cal.)(Mag.)] while holding the order U/s. 143(3) Dt. 14-12-2018 as erroneous in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, such act of the Ld. Pr. CIT is contra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt (in Rs.) 04/04/2016 6,14,679 06/04/2016 2,73,566 11/04/2016 4,38,402 06/05/2016 5,90,182 12/05/2016 12,539 14/05/2016 2,08,307 20/05/2016 2,08,632 21/05/2016 12,267 Total 23,58,574 Employees' Contribution ESIC Payment Detail Payment Date Amount (in Rs.) 04/04/2016 1,07,604 08/04/2016 1,01,420 30/04/2016 97,938 Total 3,06,962 Ld. Counsel submitted that all the amounts outstanding as on 31.03.2016 were deposited before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 6. Ld. Counsel further submitted that in the case of CIT v. Vijay Shree Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta had upheld the allowability of deduction claimed on account of e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s tabulated (supra), before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. Further, it is noted that the due date for filing the income tax return u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17 was 30.09.2016 extended to 17.10.2016. 9. We also observe that in the course of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act before the Ld. PCIT, the assessee company had furnished the relevant details and explained the issue raised through the show cause notice by the Ld. PCIT, supporting its contentions by various decisions including that of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Vijay Shree Ltd. (supra). 10. It is well settled law that for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act both the conditions that the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Officer without application of mind; (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him; [because AO has to discharge dual role of an investigator as well as that of an adjudicator] then in aforesaid any of the events, the order passed by the AO can be termed as erroneous order. Looking at the second limb as to whether the actions of the AO can be termed as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, one has to understand what is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries (supra) held that this phrase i.e. "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue'' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Their Lordships held that every loss of revenue as a co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The relevant portion from the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Shree Ltd (supra) is reproduced as under:- "The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the deletion of the addition by the Assessing Officer on account of Employees ' Contribution to ESI and PF by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported in 2009 Vol.390 ITR 306, held that the deletion was justified. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal. After hearing Mr. Sinha, learned advocate, appeari....