2022 (9) TMI 818

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee filed petition for condonation of delay, submitting the reasons for the delay that the assessee was under the bonafide belief, but erroneous view that the appeal can be filed against the consequential order, but not the order passed by the Ld.Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act'). Later on, the assessee was advised by the Ld.AR to file appeal against the said order explaining the delay. However, since the order u/s 263 was served on the assessee on 05.03.2020 and the assessee was required to file appeal before the Tribunal on or before 04.05.2020, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 dt.08.03.2021 to exclude the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore the Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the orders passed under the provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act is contrary to the provisions of law. 2. The Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (in short "Pr. CIT") did not give a finding as to what is the mistake committed by the AO in his order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act dt.16.12.2017 in the absence of which the impugned order cannot stand the test of judicial review. 3. The Ld. Pr.CIT, in the show cause notice dt.24.02.2020 observed that share premium collected by the assessee company was against provisions laid down u/s 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act read with rule 11U(a) of the ITA rules but in his ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....further submitted that the records and books of accounts were produced before the AO during the assessment proceedings and has been considered by the AO while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Hence, the Ld.AR pleaded that the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 16.12.2017 cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the scope of 263 of the Act. 4. The Ld.DR pleaded that the AO has not recorded the findings on the share premium received by the assessee in the impugned assessment year. The Ld.DR further submitted that since the AO has not examined the issue of share premium, the order is considered to be erroneous to the interest of the revenue. 5. We have heard both the parties a....