TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ORDER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee assails the invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 as exercised by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Chennai (Pr. CIT) vide impugned order dated 06-03-2019 in the matter an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26-12- 2016. The gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The Principal Commissioner observed that omission to mention that the assessment was made on a protective basis rendered the assessment order to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue while no show cause was issued to the appellant on this count thus making the entire proceedings untenable and illegal. 4. The Principal Commissioner of income tax grossly erred in his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any interference in the impugned order. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 3. The assessee has been assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26.12.2016. The assessee was found to be a director of M/s Emaar Hills Township Private Ltd. (EHTPL). Relying upon findings in assessee's own case for AY 2009-10, Ld. AO made addition of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same on the ground that impugned amount was already taxed in the hands of the company and reassessment proceedings were under challenge before first appellate authority. However, Ld. Pr. CIT observed that there were evidences that M/s EHTPL collected money for Rs. 60.81 Crores from 51 buyers out of 70 buyers. For the remaining 19 buyers, AO of M/s EHTPL had taken average on-money received fro....