2022 (11) TMI 582

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020, the period of filing appeal during the COVID- 19 pandemic is to be excluded for the purpose of counting the limitation period. In view of this, the appeal is treated as filed within the limitation period. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the invalid exercise of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by Ld. PCIT in respect of those issues which were already examined and enquired by the AO during the assessment proceedings. 4. Facts in brief are that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for limited scrutiny on three issues as under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....were completely examined by the AO by specifically calling for from the assessee the explanation on these issues and framed the assessment after accepting the pleas of the assessee by taking a plausible and possible view on all these issues. The Ld. A.R referred to notice dated 27.02.2017 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act where he pointed out in para 4,5 and 6 that the AO has called upon the assessee to furnish accounts and documents pertaining to these points. The Ld. A.R. submitted in the meantime the AO was changed and the new incumbent issued another notice u/s 142(1) dated 30.08.2017 copy of which is filed at page no. 3 of PB wherein he has specifically called for the details from the assesseeparticularly in para no. 12,13 and 14. The asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at AO has examined these issues by issuing notices u/s 133(6) to lenders and after taking into account the replies received in response thereto the AO accepted the contentions of the assessee and did not make any addition. The Ld. A.R. also contended that the Ld. PCIT has not recorded any independent findings to justify the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and therefore the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act was exercised invalidly. In defense of his arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the two decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court at Calcutta in the case of PCIT-4, Kolkata vs. M/s Bengal United Credit Belani Housing Ltd. in ITAT/188/2018 (IA No.: GA/1/2018 (Old No. GA/1412/2018) ITAT/188/2018 (IA No.: GA/1/2018 (Old....