TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 539
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue raised in the various grounds of appeal is against the invalid exercise of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by Ld. PCIT thereby cancelling and setting aside the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act which was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 04.12.2019 by the AO. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny to scrutinize two items: i) High ratio of refund of TDS and ii) Large refund claimed out of advance tax. The assessee filed return of income on 18.09.2017 showing total income of Rs. 1,77,59,170/- and the AO assessed the income in the assessment order at Rs. 1,88,95,846/- by making a disa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 7,66,485/- was offered to tax in AY 2015-16, Rs. 27,42,530/- was offered in AY 2016-17 and TDS of Rs. 1,14,500/- was wrongly deducted by Electrosteel Steel Ltd. on reimbursement of expenses in AY 2017-18as shown in Form 26AS of AY 2017-18. The Ld. PCIT went ahead with setting aside the assessment order by rejecting the reply of the assessee by observing that the assessee has not filed any corroborating evidences to prove its averments by directing the AO to make necessary enquiry /investigation and frame the assessment de novo after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. The Ld. A.R. vehemently submitted that Ld. PCIT hopelessly failed to appreciate the facts and evidences furnished by the assessee before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the various evidences which were also fled before the PCIT which proved that there was no mistake in the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld. A.R submitted that in the Ld. PCIT's order, the AO has failed to discharge its functional enquiry and verification with regard to the difference of Rs. 36,23,515/- which in fact did not exceed at all. The said amount was already offered to tax in FY 2014-15 and 1015-16 and remaining difference of Rs. 1,14,500/- on account of wrong deduction of TDS. The Ld. A.R. submitted that Ld. PCIT is duty bound to make an enquiry with regard to so called difference Rs. 36,23,515/- when the assessee submitted that necessary details and reconciliation proving thereby that there was no difference at all and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee [Rs. 7,66,485/- in AY 2015-16 and Rs. 27,42,530/- in AY 2016- 17]. We note that the remaining amount of Rs. 1,14,500/- represented wrong deduction of TDS on Electrosteel Steel Ltd. on reimbursement of expenses in FY 2016-17 which appeared in Form 26AS for AY 2017-18. Thus the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which is the mandatory condition to be fulfilled before exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the twin condition have to be satisfied before invoking t....