TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 615
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20/1026866696(1) dated 23/03/2020 for Asst. Year 2012-13 and ITA No. 531/Del/2021 is against the revision order passed by the Ld. PCIT in DIN No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2020-21/1031948078(1) dated 30/03/2021 for Asst. Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in both appeals: ITA No. 277/Del/2021 "1. That on facts and in Law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, International-1 New Delhi erred in purportedly passing order u/s. 263 dated: 23.03.2020 which is prima facie Non-Est, void ab-initio, bad in law for the following reasons: a) That the order passed and uploaded in portal on 23 March 2020 Le.. During Lock Down while offices were closed, without attaching any signature, either manually or digitally, in contrav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT has erred in holding that impugned order was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue without conducting any independent enquiry or application of mind. 4. That the Ld. CIT while holding that impugned order is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue erred in concluding that Appellant not entitled to refund of Income Tax u/s. 239 of the Act as return filed pursuant to notice u/s. 147 and rejected the contention of the Appellant that the refund was in fact due u/s. 240 of the Act as determined pursuant to order u/s. 154 Dated 28.03.2018, wrongly stated by CIT as Draft Order. 5. That the assessee craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any objections herein or add any further grounds as may be considered neces....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing and recording a finding that the Order u/s. 263 of the Act dated 23.03.2020 passed by her predecessor setting aside the assessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 26.02.2018 has no legal validity. Without Prejudice to the above Ground of Appeal: 2. That the Ld CIT erred on facts and in Law in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and holding that the order u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act dated 26.02.2018 passed by Ld AO pursuant to binding directions of AAR was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue. 3. That the Ld. CIT erred in holding that the impugned order is erroneous and prejudicial for the reason that the Ld. AD failed to enquire / examine the correctness of the computation of Capital Gains with respect to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Bar. Accordingly, Ground No.1 in ITA No. 277/Del/2021 is hereby dismissed as not pressed. 4. With regard to the other ground raised in both the appeals, the undisputed facts are as under:- (a) The first revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 23/03/2020 by the Ld. PCIT was not signed by the Ld. PCIT either manually or through digital signature. Page-1 of the order of the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act dated 23/03/2020 contains a foot note specifically mentioning as under: NOTE:- If digitally signed, date of digital signature made be taken as date of document. As stated earlier, this order was neither signed manually nor digitally signed by the Ld. PCIT. (b) This order dated 23/03/2020 was served on the assessee through ema....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....58,02,551/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed a rectification order u/s 154 of the Act on 28.03.2018 granting the differential tax credit of Rs. 5,15,63,077/- to the assessee. This order u/s 154 of the Act dated 28/03/2018 is enclosed in page 268 of the Paper Book. The Ld. AO passed another rectification order u/s 154 of the Act dated 27/09/2018 withdrawing the grant of additional TDS credit of Rs. 5,15,63,077/-. The assessee preferred an appeal against this order before the Ld. CIT(A) which was disposed of by the Ld. PCIT-42, New Delhi in Appeal No. 104/2018-19/CIT(A)-42 dated 08.05.2019 allowing the appeal of the assessee for statistical purpose and holding that rectification order was passed by the Ld. AO without granting opportunity to th....