AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 961
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax has grievously erred in initiating the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax has grievously erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax has erred in violating the principles of natural justice by not the mentioning the grounds for initiating action u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prayed that the above proposed proceedings may please be revoked as learned members of the Tribunal may deem it proper. 9. Appellant craves liberty to add, alter, or delete any of the ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal." 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is a firm and had filed return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 27.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.2,32,06,770/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee firm was engaged in the business of builder, developers and construction activities. Scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was finalized on 09.12.2016 accepting the returned income shown by the assessee firm. 4. Later on, Ld. PCIT ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee-firm. However, ld PCIT rejected the contention of the assessee and observed that assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15 on 30.11.2016 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore ld PCIT directed the Assessing Officer to recompute and determine the correct total income of the assessee-firm after making necessary disallowances of wrong claims made by the assessee-firm. Therefore, the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 23.12.2016 for A.Y. 2014-15 in assessee`s case was set-aside by ld PCIT with the direction to Assessing Officer to frame the assessment de novo. 5. Aggrieved, by the order of ld PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Shri Rasesh Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tetter. The said notice was handed over to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer concerned to serve the same upon the assessee firm. The Assessing Officer concerned duly served the notice upon the assessee firm on 15.03.2019. In response to the said notice, the assessee firm through its authorized representative, Shri S.N. Satyan, CA, vide letter dated 22.03.2019 had requested to adjourn the hearing to any date after five days. It was clearly mentioned in the show cause notice that this matter is getting time barred by limitation on 31.03.2019 and therefore requested to furnish the reply on or before scheduled date of hearing and in the event of failure to comply to the notice, order u/s . 263 of the Act will be passed on merits on the basis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 dated 23.12.2016 for A.Y. 2014-15, in the instant case, is set-aside with the direction to frame the assessment De novo. The necessary order may be passed in time and as per the provisions of law. The Assessing Officer concerned is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before finalizing the assessment proceedings." 12. From the above findings of ld PCIT in his 263 order, it is vivid that ld PCIT has given a general direction to the Assessing Officer to frame entire assessment order again, whereas ld PCIT in his revision order raised the specific issue to examine the unsecured loan by the Assessing Officer. Hence the direction given to the Assessing Officer is not in accordance with the specific issue id....