AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 505
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment order dated 04/03/2014 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue; 3. The order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, Raipur u/s 263 of the Act is liable to quashed for the violation of principles of natural justice as: i) He has not taken into account the submissions of the appellant; ii) He has not passed a speaking order; iii) He has relied on irrelevant considerations; iv) He has not allowed proper opportunity of hearing; 4. The order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, Raipur u/s 263 of the Act is liable to quashed being in violation of binding instructions of CBDT issued vide Instruction No. 7/2014 dated 26.09.2014. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Raipur, has erred in passing order u/s. 263 of the Act on different grounds than given in show cause notice in relation to security deposits without confronting the same to the appellant. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Raipur, has erred in holding that in relation to sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Total (Sl.2 to 6) Income Not reported 42,63,981/- --- TDS of Rs. 5,666/- not claimed in the return is allowed in the facts as per Form 26AS In respect of income of Rs. 16,545/- indicated at Sl.2, the Ld. A/R simply stated without assigning any reason that such income did not pertain to the assessee company. So far as income of Rs. 40,107/- at Sl. 3 is concerned, the Ld. A/R merely stated that the FDRs were placed with Sales Tax Authority but did not offer any explanation regarding non-inclusion of the same in the computation of income. With regard to income of Rs. 39,27,540/- mentioned at Sl. No.4 i.e. interest received from Chhattisgarh State Power distribution company Ltd. (CSPDCL), the Ld. A/R sated that this income was offered to tax in the next year i.e. AY 2012-13 on the ground that such interest was adjusted with the electricity bill for the month of April 2011. In respect of interest income of Rs. 2,74,218/- from State Bank of Patiala at SI. 5, the Ld. A/R merely stated that the income was offered in the AY 2012-13, without providing any explanation for not including such income in the year under scrutiny. With regard to interest income of Rs. 5,571/- at S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in view the facts and circumstances of the case, excess claim of additional depreciation of Rs. 33,979/- is disallowed and added back." 4. The Pr. CIT after culmination of the assessment proceedings called for the assessment records of the assessee company. The Pr. CIT observing that the A.O during the course of assessment proceedings had failed to apply his mind and carry out proper enquiries, thus, called upon the assessee company to show cause as to why the order passed by him u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 04.03.2014 may not be revised u/s. 263 of the Act on the following issues: "1. There was outstanding unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 21,53,64,890/- as on 31.03.2011 as reported in Annex-7 of 3CD report, which was not shown in B/S. This resulted in unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of IT Act of Rs. 21,53,64,890/-. 2. Depreciation for railway siding worth Rs. 13,34,72,417/- as claimed @7.5% [50% of 15%] and an additional depreciation @10% [50% of 20%] as plant and machinery and block depreciation. Since railway siding does not come under the block-plant and Machinery but under Roads & Bridges block, excess depreciation claimed at Rs. 16,66,76,552/-, resulted i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee has said in the return and jails to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case so made will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the Commissioner has jurisdiction to cancel the assessment. ii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Pyari Devi Saragi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) "where the assessment is made in undue haste and without enquiry it will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue." iii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of M.P in the case of CIT Vs. Deepak Kumar Gaya 299 ITR 433 has held under "where from order of Assessing Officer had don(' only a semblance of enquiry and that too, in very slipshod manner and Assessing Officer had accepted version of assessee without proper enquiry, as a result of which substantial amount of taxable income was not brought to tax, Commissioner rightly held assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue." 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 04.03.2014 is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ....