AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1081
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsideration. The original return has been filed by the assessee on 29/11/2014, later on 23/06/2015 filed a revised return declaring total income of Rs. 12,52,32,500/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS, notices u/s 143(2) and questionnaire u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings, the Assessment Order came to be passed on 27/12/2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act by accepting the income of the assessee at Rs. 12,52,32,500/-. 3. Subsequent to the scrutiny assessment order dated 27/12/2016, it came to be surface in the Department that the assessee had made a claim to be surplus through audit trial that assessee had made a provision of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and same having been duly verified and allowed in assessment order u/s 143(3), there is no case of any error so as to justify the revision u/s 263 of the Act. (ii) That the appellant has been recognizing income or loss as per Percentage completion Method (POCM) as prescribed by AS-7 and same being a recognized method in terms of section 145, the observation of CIT holding the loss to be of contingent nature is misconceived and in total disregard to accounting policy regularly followed by the appellant. 3. That assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 merely on the basis of audit objection is without any legal basis particularly is without any legal basis particularly when original order was passed after detailed enquiry and verification. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder has been passed after detailed enquiry and verification. Ld. Counsel has also relied on various judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that, the order of the Assessing Officer is cryptic, the Ld. A.O has not discussed any issues which was raised in the questionnaire, since the order of Ld. A.O is non-speaking one, the Ld. PCIT has rightly invoked Section 263 of the Act and remanded the matter with a direction to pass fresh assessment order. Therefore, the Ld. DR submitted that, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) requires no interference and the hands of the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. It is eme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome 15. Details of dividend received/ income-exempt from tax, if any. Also give details ofexpenses attributable to earning this income. 16. Details of deductions claimed, if any, under chapter VIA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the following format: S. No. Section under which the deduction is claimed Amount of the deduction claimed Before note in support of claim 17. Details of income claimed to be exempt under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the following format: S.No Section under which the exemption is claimed Amount of the exemption claimed Brief note in support of claim 18 Details of the increase in authorized share capital if any, during the year and also the details of the corresponding fees and paid to the RO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Assessee in the year under consideration. It if found that the Assessing officer after examining of the entire facts and circumstances of the case accepted the submission of the Assessee and allowed the claim of the Assessee which is based on the same accounting slandered 7 followed in the earlier years. 11. In the present case as Revenue has accepted the Accounting Method followed by the Assessee for year to year, in the middle of the completion of the project, neither the AO nor the PCIT can not disturb the method of accounting followed by the Assessee, if the accounting method is allowed to be disturb on an assessment year, which will give distort picture of the Assessee's financial position. Thus the Order passed by the AO canno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way/7 1 or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. 14. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs UOI & Ors. (2006) 3~SCC 1 while discussing the ambit of the principle of res judicata made the following observations: "20. The decisions cited have uniformly held that res judicata does not apply in matters p....