TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1303
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in passing the impugned order U/s. 263 of the I.T. Act. The order passed is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 1.2 In any case, the conditions precedent for assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act being absent in as much as there was no order which was erroneous so as to cause prejudice to the interest of the revenue, the impugned order becomes void, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 1.3 The Assessing Officer having considered all aspects and after detailed enquiry, having allowed the deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act, any further direction in the order U/s. 263 of the Income tax Act, on the same issue will only amount to a change of opinion, disentitling, assumption of jurisdiction U/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ification of documentary evidences available deduction has to be allowed as such without any variation. 6. The various observations/conclusions made/drawn by the principal Commissioner of Income tax during the course of revision proceedings are totally erroneous on facts and evidence available are to be rejected/disregarded in toto. 7. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is requested that the impugned order be quashed or at least it be held that the appellant is entitled to deduction u/s. 80IC of I.T. Act, 1961, as claimed." 3. Brief facts pertinent to the adjudication of the case are that the order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been passed by the ld. PCIT, Dehra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deliberation. Hence, it was submitted that the proposal to withdraw the deduction u/s. 80IC is only a substitutional judgment which is not permissible u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act. It was also submitted that the representation and the replies given by the Authorized Representative can be taken as authorized by the assessee. 5. The ld. PCIT, having not satisfied with the reply filed by the partner of the assessee firm held that, a. The notices issued u/s. 143(2) by the ITO was received unserved with the remark of the notice server dated 19.08.2013 that the premises have been locked and the postal authority reported that the name of the firm is unknown. b. Had the manufacturing activities were carried out as on date the notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d dated 19.08.2014 and the matter has been intimated to ITO, Ward-1, Roorkee. The matter has also been intimated to Asstt. Commissioner, Commercial Tax surrendering the TIN No. 05009213376. Commercial Tax Department, Uttarakhand cancelled the TIN/registration on 04.03.2013 and intimated the assessee which is on record. The notice has been issued on 19.08.2013 by the ITO and on 26.07.2016 by the ld. PCIT. Since, the notices issued by the revenue authorities were after the date of closure of the business they have been rightly returned answered. Since, the closure of the business as no operations could be carried and no employees were available at the premises of the factory, the notices have been returned. Hence, it cannot be concluded that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rseas Pvt. Ltd. The bills have been duly examined. The transport bills have been duly filed before the AO which consists of South India Freight Carriers and Uttarakhand Logistics. The transport charges have been paid by the recipient. The central Sales Tax declarations/'C' Form have been duly filed. Hence, there is no reason to suspect the sales without bringing any material to prove that the bills are phoney or the entities which received the goods are bogus. Hence, the conclusion of the ld. PCIT cannot be supported. f. The sale invoices to those two concerns do not give any information as to how the goods have been sent to Bangalore from Roorkee. The sale invoices clearly shows that the goods have been s....