TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 790
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-2019. The grounds taken by the assessee read as under: 1. Learned Pr.CIT erred in passing an order under section 263 of the Act on 24/3/2022 holding that the order dated 09/12/2019 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of Act is erroneous since the same has been passed without properly examining issues viz., (i) salary to Manager & Asst.Manager; (ii) disallowance of interest to others (iii) Cash deposit during demonetization period (iv) Audit fees and (v) bonus to staff and customers. 1.2 Learned Pr.CIT erred in invoking provisions of Sec.263 disregarding the pendency of notice already issued by the learned Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act on 10-4-2021 on the above very same 5 issues [status of which is still 'open....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder appeal lacks jurisdiction. 2. The Ld. AR submitted that the rectification application u/s 154 was pending against the assessment order and therefore, the revision of the order was beyond jurisdiction. The Ld. AR also submitted that requisite details qua issues flagged in the revisional order was duly called for by Ld. AO during the course of original proceedings which were supplied by the assessee. Therefore, there was no error in the order and no prejudice could be said to have caused to the revenue. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, controverted the arguments of Ld. AR and submitted that Ld. AO should have been more cautious and he failed to verify the issues as flagged in the revisional order. Having heard rival submissions and up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r is not allowable and the same is required to be disallowed. The Ld. AO failed to verify the same. The Ld. Pr. CIT held that the assessment order was passed without examining the above issues which shows lack of enquiry and nonapplication of mind by Ld. AO. Accordingly, the assessee was put to show cause notice. 3.3 The assessee assailed the revision and filed a reply which has been extracted in the impugned order. Regarding excessive salary to Asstt. Manager and Manager, it was submitted that both employees were playing vital and managerial role in running the business and to carry out day-to-day operations, The salary was paid based on their skills. The salaries so paid has already been offered to tax by them in their respective tax re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. First, we deal with the argument of Ld. AR that pending rectification application u/s 154, revision jurisdiction was ousted. We find that this issue has been addressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ralson Industries Ltd. (158 Taxman 160).The facts in that case are quite similar to facts before us. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the scope and ambit of a proceeding for rectification of an order under section 154 and a proceeding for revision under section 263 are distinct and different. The order of rectification can be passed on certain contingencies. It does not confer a power of review. If an order of assessment is rectifie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontesting parties could bring the same to the notice of the Commissioner so as to enable him to take into consideration the subsequent events also. It goes without saying that if and when the Commissioner of Income-tax takes up for consideration a subsequent event, the assessee would be entitled to make its submission also in regard thereto. This decision would have precedence over all the other decisions as cited by Ld. AR. Therefore, we reject this plea raised by Ld. AR. 5. Proceeding further, we find that during the course of original assessment proceeding, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee calling for requisite details from the assessee. The same include Copies of Audit Report and financial statements of previous 3 years.....