AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1058
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer under Section 143(3) r.w. Section 153A of the Act were sought to be set aside for reframing the assessment in terms of supervisory jurisdiction. ITA No.1356/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2013-14) 2. When the matter was called for hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that a revised concise ground of appeal has been placed at page no.21 and 22 of paper book. He however in the same vein submitted that he does not seek to press various grievances raised in the revised concise ground except Ground no.5(ii) and Ground no.6 thereof which is reproduced herein. "5(ii). in directing the AO to make verification of claim of tax deducted at source by HHEC Ltd a Government of India Undertaking for alleged claim of excess TDS proportionate to i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal proceedings was referred and it was submitted that the identical amount was also shown to have been credited in the name of the assessee by M/s. HHEC India Ltd. It was thus contended that the interest income of Rs.13,91,302/- does not belong to the assessee and thus did not accrue to the assessee despite its reference in the AIR information. It was contended that the stance of the assessee is vouched by the ledger account of the assessee in the books of HHEC India Ltd. which is a Government of India undertaking. It was further submitted that balance amount of Rs.21,650/- has been disclosed as income from other sources. It was submitted that TDS was claimed as per the credits available in the AIR information but excess credit granted in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue on the other hand relied upon the revisional order of the Pr.CIT. The Ld. CIT-DR further referred to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (2005) 142 Taxman 653 (Alld) for the proposition that omission of the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings in the course of the assessment renders assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and thus susceptible to proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. The Ld. CIT-DR thus submitted that the ld. Pr.CIT is capable of modification in the charge for imposition of penalty under Section 263 of the Act where the Assessing Officer has committed glaring error resulting in lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to other issue concerning modification in the charge of initiation of penalty proceedings from Section 271AAB to Section 271(1)(c) in the revisional order, we find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by several decisions as referred to on behalf of the assessee. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Addl. CIT vs. JK D'Costa (supra) has observed that failure of the Assessing Officer in recording satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings cannot be said to be a factor for vitiating the assessment order or making it erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The revisional Commissioner is thus not vested with power to rectify/modify such alleged errors in the revisional jurisdiction. Similar v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ossly erred in passing an order under section 263 and in summarily dismissing the submission of the appellant. (4) That the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has grossly erred in passing order u/s 263 without making any independent enquiry herself rendering the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 unsustainable in law and facts of the case. (5) Without prejudice to the above grounds that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Pr. C1T is bad in law. as the order passed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has grossly erred in directing the AO to make further detailed enquiry and verification on the following issues....