2023 (1) TMI 571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he simple reason that the ld. AO should have initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act dated 31.12.2019 for both the years. 02. In both the orders the ld. PCIT has directed the AO to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act. Thus, the assessee is aggrieved and has raised identical grounds of appeal for both the assessment years as under : "1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which is illegal, bad-in-law otherwise void for want of jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ld. AO for De novo adjudication. 06. Based on the direction of ITAT, assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 was made on 31.12.2019 at total income of Rs.12,18,84,689/-. The disallowance u/s. 37(1) of the Act of interest was made of Rs.12,07,35,739/-. 07. The ld. PCIT examined the above records and find that the AO has failed to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act and therefore, the orders passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore subject to revision u/s. 263 of the Act. 08. Notice U/s 263 was issued to the assessee on 31.01.2022. The assessee filed a return submission on 28.02.2022 and 08.03.2022 challenging the action of the ld. PCIT. The ld. PCIT after considering th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 29.03.2022. 09. Identically, order u/s. 263 of the Act was also passed for A.Y. 2011-12 on 29.03.2022 holding that the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act dt. 03.12.2019 is erroneous. 010. Contesting the order of the ld. PCIT,LD AR submitted paper book containing 276 pages and relied upon the several judicial precedence holding that the order passed by the ld. PCIT is not sustainable in law. The ld. AR referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of ACIT Vs. J.K. D'costa 9 taxmann 88 and dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 02.03.1984. The decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Keshrimal Parasmal27 taxmann 447, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in 289 ITR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was further stated that even otherwise the order u/s. 263 of the Act was passed by the ld. PCIT on the recommendation of the AO which is mentioned in the revisionary order itself, next the revisionary order unsustainable in law. The 263 order is required to pass on the independent finding of the ld. PCIT. 011. Accordingly, it was submitted that the order of the ld. PCIT is not sustainable in law. 012. The ld. CIT DR vehemently supported the orders of the ld. PCIT. It was submitted that non-initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act makes assessment orders passed by ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was further submitted that when the ITAT has set aside the assessment orders to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irect the learned assessing officer to initiate penalty proceedings framing specific charge of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case, even after setting aside of the order by the coordinate bench, the learned assessing officer has framed assessment for assessment year 2000 - 11 u/s 143 (3) read with Section 254 of the income tax act, 1961. On 31 December 2019 making an addition of Rs. 120,735,739/- being disallowance u/s 37 (1) of the income tax act did not record any satisfaction about concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, no penalty was initiated u/s 271 (1) (c) of the act. Subsequently, as the facts recorded by the learned and CIT in order u/s 263 of the act at p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT vs Kesrimal Parasmal by 27 taxman 447 (Rajasthan has held thatIn J.K. D'Costa's case (133 ITR 7 ] (Delhi) it was held that the Commissioner was not entitled to set aside the assessment order passed by the ITO on the ground that there was no mention of initiation of penalty proceedings in the order and that he could not direct the ITO to make fresh assessment to initiate penalty proceedings. The Supreme Court has dismissed the special leave petition in the said case in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 11391 and 11392 of 1981, dated 2-3-1984 [1984] 147 ITR (St.) 1. As the position was concluded and settled by the Supreme Court, the question which was sought to be referred could not be said to be a substantial question of law a....