TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 925
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g debatable issues, cannot be subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act, as the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 02.03.2021 cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The Ld. PCIT had no jurisdiction to pass order u/s 263 of the Act dated 30.03.2023. 4. The Ld. CIT, has violated principles of natural justice, by not considering the submissions filed by the assessee in passing order u/s 263 of the Act dated 14.03.2023 and by changing the basis of invoking jurisdiction itself 5. The Ld CIT, has erred in setting aside the assessment order for making fresh inquires and verification. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter/delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing." 2. Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs. 228, 82,260/- was filed on 29.08.2018. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme 2019 on the following issues: "i. Income from real business: ii. Unsecured Loans: A notice u/s 143(2) dated 22.09.2019 was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessment u/s 143(3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther, on verification of Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2018, it is seen that assessee has shown secured loan from Tata Capital Hsg Fin. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 1,79,98,713/- for which the date of loans taken is not available on record ISSUE No 2 On verification of Profit & Loss A/c., it is seen that assessee has debited an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards TDR Expenses. As TDR Expenses are in the nature of capital expenditure, the assessee is not entitled to claim it as revenue expenditure. Therefore, you are being allowed an opportunity of being heard and show-cause as to why an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment within the meaning of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, may not be passed in your case." 4. Vide notice issued u/s 263 of the Act the ld. Pr. CIT has pointed out that the assessing officer in the assessment order has not mentioned that whether the assessee was following percentage completion method or project completion method for recognising the revenue. The ld. Pr.CIT on verification of the profit and loss account noticed that assesse has debited an amount of Rs. 190,10,995/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n taken during the year Total interest TDS made if any Repayment of loan during year Balance c/f 31.03.2018 Also furnish the following 1. The identity details of the loan creditor 2. The copy of duly signed 'Loan confirmations' from the loan creditors 3. The copy of the income tax return and/or balance sheet of loan creditors, 4. The bank statement of the loan creditor showing the transactions. Please note that the primary onus to substantiate the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditors' and genuineness of such loan transactions' lies upon you. For each loan taken from any financial institution, kindly provide loan sanction letter." He also referred serial no. 11, 12, 13 and 18 of the questionnaire wherein the AO has asked the following detail: "11. Kindly furnish the details of major heads of expenditure debited to the Trading and Profit & Loss a/c and details of TDS made on such expenses, if applicable. Also kindly furnish details of ledgers and all major bills regarding the above. 12. Please provide project wise party wise details of Sales made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary powers u/s 263 of the Act. as the assessment order has been passed by NFAC. ii. The Ld. DR objected to the said contention and sought time to file a written submission. The Hon'ble Bench directed the Ld. DR to reply by 06.12.2023 and simultaneously granted time to the undersigned to file a submission by 08.12.2023. iii. Therefore, the present submission. iv. Further, the present submission is restricted to the said Ground No. 3 only. though the undersigned had argued even on the other grounds of appeal 2. Ground No 3 "The Ld. PCIT had no jurisdiction to pass order u/s 263 of the Act dated 30.03, 2023." 3. To support the above ground, there are four separate arguments brought out hereunder: A. Since, NEAC/ NFAC (referred to as NEAC) has jurisdiction to pass assessment order and since, NEAC has, in fact, passed order, therefore, the same cannot be revised by the Respondent. a. Jurisdiction to pass order and that the order is, in fact, passed by NEAC i. Notification No. 61/2019 dated 12.09.2019 issued u/s 143(3A) of the Act - Para 4(i) -NEAC shall be vested with the jurisdiction to make assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lar provisions under Civil Procedure Code, wherein it is settled that revisionary powers can be exercised only over the subordinate courts and cannot be exercised over a Court which is not subordinate c. Power u/s 263 is not based on territorial jurisdiction but is based on the jurisdiction which a PCIT/ CIT exercises over his/her subordinate. There is no notification to the effect that power u/s 263 has to be exercised by the territorial PCIT d. Reliance in this regard, is placed on the following decisions i. 152 TTJ (Mumbai) 265 Essar Steel Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT "18. Before parting, we would like to observe that there seems to be no clarity about the authority who has to modify the TPO's order in case, any order of TPO is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue CIT cannot exercise jurisdiction over TPO as TPO functions separately under the Director of IT(TP). In our view the Director of IT should have initiated the proceedings under s. 263 on the order of the TPO instead of sending proposal to the CIT for revising the order of the TPΟ." ii. ITA(TP) no. 3121and 3122/Mum./2013 Tata Communications Limited vs. DCIT dated 20.12.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-27, Mumbai and therefore, PCIT, Mumbai could not have exercised his supervisory powers u/s 263 of the Act over the order passed by FAO. C. Concurrent jurisdiction and therefore, power can be exercised by respective PCIT/CIT a. This is another fact of the argument no. 3B earlier. b. As per Notification No. 2756 (E) dated 13.08.2020, and as per Notification No. 1435(E) dated 31.03.2021, NEAC and FAO have concurrent jurisdiction over assessees. This has been accepted in para 2.1.3 of the written submission of the Ld. DR. c. Such notification is issued, inter alia, u/s 120(5) of the Act. d. It is submitted that, dictionary meaning of the term "concurrently" is "at the same time". Thus, Concurrent jurisdiction means, both the Jurisdictional AO ('JAO') and FAO have concurrent jurisdiction to assess an assessee. However, assessment is to be done by only one to the exclusion of the other i.e., only one can exercise power to assess and pass an order to the exclusion of other and both cannot do it simultaneously. This has been recognised under the Act and the faceless scheme and the instructions issued thereunder. This fact is undisputed.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovided for in section 263 or explanations thereto, (See 132 taxmann.com 231 (Del) Abha Bansal vs. PCIT). f. In any case, when approvals of PCIT are taken at various stages of assessment, such an order, cannot be revised by his contemporary at the same level. This is a settled law. [See (1996) 57 ITD 328 (Bom) Trustees of Parsi Panchayat Funds & Properties vs. DIT] g. Once order is passed with approval of PCIT, invocation of section 263 will not amount to a revision but would be a review, which is not what section 263 permits. h. Thus, by this logic, as well, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. 4. Rebuttal of the contentions of the Ld. DR 1. Para 2.1 to 2.1.8 a. The Ld. DR has, has contended as under a. that the power of Jurisdictional PCIT does not in any manner get affected by Faceless Regime as he has territorial jurisdiction; JAO and Jurisdictional PCIT have perpetual jurisdiction over a case; b. In para 2.1.3 and 2.1.4, it is stated that as per the Notification stated therein the jurisdiction of FAO is concurrent; c. After completion of the assessment, the records are transferred to the JAO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of record" is for doing some limited function by the JAO. 3. Thirdly, it is very pertinent to note that set aside proceeding, consequent to an order u/s 263 of the Act, has to be completed by a FAO [See Order F. No. 187/3/2020-ITA-1, dated 31-3-2021]. Thus, the records are retransferred to the FAO. Thus, original assessment is by FAO and set aside assessment is by FAO. Then in such case, the order passed in the interregnum u/s 263 of the Act, cannot be by the Jurisdictional PCIT. 4. Even the reassessment proceeding is done by FAO. In fact, notice u/s 148 has to be issued by FAO (See Hon'ble Telangana High Court judgment in [2023] 156 taxmann.com 178 (Tel) Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. ITO (enclosed)). In fact, even the assessment proceeding for the other years are to be completed by FAO and not JAO and therefore, it cannot be stated that concurrent jurisdiction has ended on completion of assessment 5. Further, transfer of record, does not mean that the order shall be deemed to be passed by the JAO and not FAO. Moreover, mere transfer of record would not mean transfer of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act to an Officer who had no jurisdiction. The notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v. Reliance has been placed on the Boards reply in a writ petition and the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. In this regard, the following is submitted 1. Firstly, the same are not in the context of section 263 of the Act, but section 148 of the Act. Therefore, the same is not relevant at all, 2. Secondly, in identical context, Division Bench of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court has taken a favourable view that even notice u/s 148 of the Act has to be issued by FAO. Such a detailed order, has not been considered by the Single Judge of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, which has dismissed the writ petition in a one para order. 3. Thirdly, in any case, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that both the authorities exercise concurrent jurisdiction. That supports the case of the Assessee, inasmuch as, the Commissioner of the concerned AO who has passed order, should exercise power u/s 263 of the Act. ii. Para 2.2 to 2.2.5 a. The Ld. DR has contended the following i. That the power u/s 263 is a supervisory power to correct the erroneous orders of his subordinates. ii. In para 2.2.3 the Ld. DR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdiction is derived u/s 263 of the Act and such power u/s 263 is a supervisory power, is not disputed. It is, also, not disputed that such power can be exercised only over the subordinates within the jurisdiction of the PCIT. Rather the same has been specifically admitted. It is a settled law that when power is given under the statute to do a certain thing in a certain way, it must be done in that way or not at all. [See 346 ITR 443 (Bom) Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT (enclosed) and several other] In light of the above, it is humbly submitted that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law, without jurisdiction and bad in law and therefore, should be quashed and set aside." 8. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel contended that 263 order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT on 30.03.2023 is bad in law and the Pr.CIT has no jurisdiction to pass the order as the assessment in this case was made by the assessing officer under the E-assessment Scheme which was under the supervision of the another Pr.CIT. The ld. Counsel referred the CBDT Notification dated 12.03.2019. He referred para 4 of the notification as under: "4. E-assessment C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... strategy specified by the Board, including by way of an automated examination tool, Whereupon it may decide to:- (a) finalise the assessment as per the draft assessment order and serve a copy of such order and notice for initiating penalty proceedings, if any, to the assessee, alongwith the demand notice, specifying the sum payable by, or refund of any amount due to, the assessee on the basis of such assessment, or (b) provide an opportunity to the assessee, in case a modification is proposed, by serving a notice calling upon him to show cause as to why the assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order, or (c) assign the draft assessment order to a review unit in any one Regional e-assessment Centre, through an automated allocation system, for conducting review of such order." 9. He also referred CBDT Notification dated 14.06.2023. The ld. Counsel also referred the case of Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT of ITAT, Mumbai vide ITA No. 4007/Mum/2010 dated 31.10.2012 wherein held that in the case of any order of TPO is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, CIT cannot exercise jurisdiction over TPO as TPO functions separately under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act. The ld. Counsel submitted that power u/s 263 is not based on territorial jurisdiction but is based on the jurisdiction which a PCIT/CIT exercise over his subordinate. He also referred the Board Notification as referred above in this order pertaining to the scheme on e-assessment. He was of the view that assessment order is passed with concurrent/approval of additional CIT/JCIT and PCIT at various stages therefore such order cannot be revised by PCIT, Mumbai having territorial jurisdiction physically over the case. We have perused the provision of e-assessment scheme 2019. The said scheme was notified by the CBDT vide notification dated 12.09.2019 which was later renamed as faceless assessment scheme 2019 FAS vide the CBDT notification date 13.08.2020 reproduced as under: "1. Ground no 3 filed by the assessee in the above-stated appeal is as under: "The Ld. PCIT had no jurisdiction to pass order us 263 of the Act dated 30-03-2023." 1.1 During the hearing held on 29-11-2023, the learned counsel for the assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the PCIT, Mumbai-27 to pass order u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 in the above-mentioned case for AY 2018-19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansfer the case back to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such case with prior approval of the CBDT(refer to sub-section (8) to section 144B of the Act). Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, the National e-assessment Centre may assign the case to an assessment unit, other than the assessment unit which has drafted the assessment order, to implement the suggestions for modification received from the review unit(refer to clause (xix) to sub-section (1) of section 144B of the Act ). 2.1.3 Further, vide CBDT notification dated 31^st March, 2021 all the Income-tax Authorities of Regional Faceless Assessment Centres such as the concerned CCIT, PCIT, Addi/JCITs, DCITs/ACITs and ITOs shall exercise the powers and functions of Assessing Officers concurrently to facilitate the conduct of Faceless Assessment proceedings under section 144B of the Act. The relevant pages of the said notification are enclosed for ready reference. 2.1.4 Furthermore, the Office Memorandum dated 6th February, 2023 being F. No.370153/03/2023-TPL issued by the CBDT throws light on the issue of concurrent jurisdiction of the Faceless Assessment Units and the original jur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nit to complete the on-going assessment on receipt of suggestions from review unit. Thus, the scope of the Faceless Assessment Scheme is limited to the making of the assessment in the selected case, after which the electronic records pertaining to the assessment are transferred back to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for other actions required under the Act. Under certain circumstances, with prior approval of the CBDT, the case may be transferred back to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer even before the completion of the assessment. Thus, section 144B provides for fluidity in the jurisdiction over the case/ assessee during the assessment proceedings. However, the fixed jurisdiction always lies with the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who never ceases to have jurisdiction over the case. 2.1.7 In the present case, the above-mentioned assessee was assessed within the jurisdiction of the DCIT, 27(3), Mumbai. The assessment for AY 2018-19 was transferred to Regional E-assessment Centre assessment unit on 13-10-2020. After completion of the assessment on 22-03-2021, its electronic records were transferred back to the DCIT, 27(3), Mumbai for other actions required under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings. The jurisdictional PCIT may then issue hearing notice to give opportunity to the assessee, if he considers the assessment order to be erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The jurisdictional PCIT further passes an order setting aside the assessment and directing the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment. 2.2.4 Thus, since the electronic records were available with the DCIT, 27(3), Mumbai after completion of assessment, hence the PCIT, Mumbai-27 had the sole authority to call for and to examine the assessment record, to consider whether provisions of section 263 of the Act were liable to be invoked, to give opportunity to the assessee and to direct the DCIT, 27(3), Mumbai to make fresh assessment. 2.2.5 In the light of the above facts, it can be safely concluded that the assuming of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the PCIT, Mumbai-27 over the assessment order passed by the faceless assessment unit is totally valid and entirely as per the statute. 2.3 It is fervently maintained that the PCIT (Assessment Unit) is not the competent authority to exercise jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the PCIT to pass order u/s 263 of the Act." 12. In respects of grounds of appeal No. 1 to 2 and 4 filed by the assessee on merit of order passed u/s 263 of the Act, we have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The ld. Pr.CIT observed that assessee was following project completion method for recognizing the revenue. Therefore, the ld. Pr.CIT was of the view that since assessee was following project completion method, therefore, the interest on loans taken during the year was not allowable in the year under consideration. However, on perusal of the record and hearing of both the side we find that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has filed copy of audited profit and loss account, balance sheet audit reports, ICDS notes and computation as placed on page no. 1 to 32 of the paper book filed during the course of appellate proceedings. On perusal of the profit and loss account it is noticed that assessee as shown sales of flats to the amount of Rs. 15,53,20,580/- and in the profit and loss account also debited interest expenses of Rs. 1,90,10,995/-. It is also noticed in the profit and loss account assessee has shown closing stock of unsold ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etion method of accounting as per the guidance note of Revenue Recognition by the Real Estate Developer issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India. Further at serial no. 5 under the head significant Accounting Policies and Disclosure as per ICDS of the audit report that borrowing cost in respect to the acquisition and construction of assets are capitalised as part of the cost of respective asset up to the date when such assets get ready to intended use. 14. Further we have perused the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act issued by the assessing officer on 19.02.2020 in which at serial no. 5 of the annexure the assessing officer asked the assessee to furnish detail of loan taken/received and interest expenses etc. Then at serial no. 13 the assessing officer has asked the assesse to furnish the complete details of project wise opening stock, closing stock, work in progress etc. The AO has also asked as per serial no. 18 of the annexure to the notice to explain the method adopted by the assessee for booking profit and apportionment of expenditure in the light of various accounting standard in this regard such as AS-7. The AO has also asked the assessee to furnish the complete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roject completion method. 17. In respect of claim of TDR expenses of Rs. 5 lac, it is undisputed fact that assessee was engaged in the business of construction and development of building. The assessee has explained that TDR was a right of construction in form of FSI relating to land and building which was part of stock in trade in the business carried out by the assessee, therefore, we consider that treating TDR in the nature of capital expenditure was not justified. The ld. Pr.CIT has not substantiated that how the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, ground no.1 & 2 and 4 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. Ground No.3: The ld. Pr.CIT has no jurisdiction to pass order u/s 263 of the Act: 18. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel submitted that assessment order has been passed under the faceless assessment scheme. He further stated that such scheme was notified vide CBDT notification dated 12.09.2019 and as per the scheme of NFAC and the jurisdiction has been vested in the NFAC to make assessment He further stated that as per notification no. 60/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ix. 346 ITR 443 (Bom) Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT: On the other hand, the ld. D.R has vehemently contended that the Pr.CIT-27, Mumbai had territorial jurisdiction over the case and correctly exercised the power to invoke provision of Sec. 263 of the Act. The ld. D.R has made reference to the various notification issued by the CBDT regarding the faceless assessment scheme. She further stated E- Assessment Scheme 2019 was renamed as Faceless Assessment Scheme vide CBDT notification dated 13.08.2020. Subsequently, Sec. 144B of the Income Tax 1961 was inserted in the I.T. Act w.e.f 01.04.2021 to provide the manner in which faceless scheme shall be conducted within the Income Tax Act itself. She further stated that as per Sec. 144B of the Act the National e-assessment shall after completion of the assessment, transfer all the electronic records of the case to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over the said case for such action as may be required under the Act. She also submitted that as per CBDT notification dated 31.03.2021 all the Income Tax Authorities of Regional Faceless Assessment Center such as the concerned CCIT, PCIT, Addl/JCIT, DCIT/ACITs and ITOs shall exer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21 to provide the manner in which faceless assessment shall be conducted within the Income Tax Act. We have perused the S.O. 2745(E) dated 13.08.2020 wherein procedure for e-assessment has been given as per clause 4(iv) the National E-assesment Center shall assigned the case selected for the purpose of e-assessment under this scheme to a specific assessment unit in anyone regional assessment center through an automated allocation assessment. Further as per clause 4 (xxvi) under the procedure for assessment it is laid down that National e-Assessment Center shall, after completion of assessment transfer all the electronic record of the case to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over the said case for such action has may be required under the Act. We have also perused the provision of Sec. 144B of Faceless Assessment Scheme 2021 inserted w.e.f 01.04.2021. The relevant provision of Sec. 144B is reproduced as under: "144B. [(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this Act, the assessment, reassessment or re-computation under sub section (3) of section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with respect ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh an automated allocation system; or (b) for reference to the technical unit has been made by the assessment unit under sub-clause (c) of clause (iv), the request shall be assigned by the National Faceless Assessment Centre to a technical unit through an automated allocation system; (vii) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall send the report received from the verification unit or the technical unit, as the case may be based on the request referred to in clause (vi) to the concerned assessment unit, (viii) where the assessee fails to comply with the notice served under clause (v) or notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or the terms of notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 143, the National Face less Assessment Centre shall intimate such failure to the assessment unit, (ix) the assessment unit shall serve upon such assessee, as referred to in clause (viii), a notice, through the National Faceless Assessment Centre, under section 144, giving him an opportunity to show-cause on a date and time as specified in such notice as to why the assessment in his case should not be completed to the best of its judgment, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment Centre may, on the basis of guidelines issued by the Board- (a) convey to the assessment unit to prepare draft order in accordance with the income or loss determination proposal, which shall thereafter prepare a draft order, or (b) assign the income or loss determination proposal to a review unit through an automated allocation system, for conducting review of such proposal, (xvii) the review unit shall conduct review of the income or loss determination proposal assigned to it by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, under sub-clause (b) of clause (xvi), whereupon it shall prepare a review report and send the same to the National Faceless Assessment Centre, (xviii) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall, upon receiving the review report under clause (xvii), forward the same to the assessment unit which had proposed the income or loss determination proposal; (xix) the assessment unit shall, after considering such review report, accept or reject some or all of the modifications proposed therein and after recording reasons in case of rejection of such modifications, prepare a draft order; (xx) the assessment uni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee files objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel, under sub-clause (b) of clause (xxiv), the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall send such intimation along with a copy of objections filed to the assessment unit; (xxviii) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall, in a case referred to in clause (xxvii), upon receipt of the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel under sub-section (5) of section 144C, forward such directions to the assessment unit; (xxix) the assessment unit shall, in conformity with the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel under sub-section (5) of section 144C, complete the assessment within the time allowed in sub- section (13) of section 144C and initiate penalty proceedings, if any, and send a copy of the assessment order to the National Faceless Assessment Centre: (xxx) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall, upon receipt of the assessment order referred to in clause (xxvi) or clause (xxix), as the case may be, serve a copy of such order and notice for initiating penalty proceedings, if any, on the assessee, along with the demand notice, specifying the sum payable by, or the amount of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of books of account, examination of witnesses and recording of statements, and such other functions as may be required for the purposes of verification and the term 'verification unit", wherever used in this section, shall refer to an Assessing Officer having powers so assigned by the Board: Provided that the function of verification unit under this section may also be performed by a verification unit located in any other faceless centre set up under the provisions of this Act or under any scheme notified under the provisions of this Act, and the request for verification may also be assigned through the National Faceless Assessment Centre to such verification unit, (iv) such technical units, as it may deem necessary to facilitate the conduct of faceless assessment, to perform the function of providing technical assistance which includes any assistance or advice on legal, accounting, forensic, information technology, valuation, transfer pricing, data analytics, management or any other technical matter under this Actor an agreement entered into under section 90 or 90A, which may be required in a particular case or a class of cases, under this section and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Centre by way of an electronic communication: (b) the assessment unit or verification unit or technical unit or review unit, as the case may be, by affixing digital signature; (c) assessee or any other person, son, by affixing his digital signature or under electronic verification code, or by logging into his registered account in the designated portal; (ii) every notice or order or any other electronic communication shall be delivered to the addressee, being the assessee, by way of- (a) placing an authenticated copy thereof in the registered account of the assessee, or (b) sending an authenticated copy thereof to the registered email address of the assessee or his authorised representative; or (c) uploading an authenticated copy on the Mobile App of the asses see, and followed by a real time alert; (iii) every notice or order or any other electronic communication shall be delivered to the addressee, being any other person, by sending an authenticated copy thereof to the registered email address of such person, followed by a real time alert, (iv) the assessee shall file his response to any notice or order or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erencing or video telephony at such locations as may be necessary, so as to ensure that the assessee, or his authorised representative, or any other person is not denied the benefit of faceless assessment merely on the consideration that such assessee or his authorised representative, or any other person does not have access to video conferencing or video telephony at his end; (xi) the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General, as the case may be, in-charge of the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall, with the prior approval of the Board, lay down the standards, procedures and processes for effective functioning of the National Faceless Assessment Centre and the units set up, in an automated and mechanised environment. (7) (a) The Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General, as the case may be, in-charge of the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Board in this regard, if he considers appropriate that the provisions of sub-section (24) of section 142 may be invoked in the case,- (i) forward the reference received from an assessment unit under clause (xxxii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duce the scope of discretion; (e) "computer resource" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000); (f) "computer system" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (1) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000); (g) "computer resource of assessee shall include assessee's registered account in designated portal of the Income-tax Department, the Mobile App linked to the registered mobile number of the assessee, or the registered email address of the assessee with his email service provider, (h) "digital signature shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (p) of sub-section (1) of section 29 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000); (i) "designated portal" means the web portal designated as such by the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General, in charge of the National Faceless Assessment Centre; (j) "Dispute Resolution Panel" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (a) of sub-section (15) of section 144C; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....address available in the Permanent Account Number database relating to the addressee; or (iv) in the case of addressee being an individual who possesses the Aadhaar number, the e-mail address of addressee available in the database of Unique Identification Authority of India; or (v) in the case of addressee being a company, the e-mail address of the company as available on the official website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, or (vi) any e-mail address made available by the addressee to the income-tax authority or any person authorised by such authority; (u) registered mobile number of the assessee means the mobile number of the assessee, or his authorised representative, appearing in the user profile of the electronic filing account registered by the assessee in designated portal; (v) "video conferencing or video telephony" means the technological solutions for the reception and transmission of audio-video signals by users at different locations, for communication between people in real-time.]" Under the Sec. 144B the whole procedure of faceless assessment has been specified. As per the detailed procedure laid down in clause xxxi of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he issue of revisionary power of PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. The case of CIT Vs Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works (1998) 96 taxman 1 (SC) is also pertained to different proposition of invoking Sec. 263 on the basis of valuation report submitted by DVO. Similarly the case of Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Vs. ACIT, circle 1 (2012) 20 taxman.com 716 (Bom) is related to different issue of issuing of notice u/s 148 that there is no statutory provision under which a power of Addl. CIT to be exercised by the Commissioner of Income Tax. We have also gone through the decision of Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, vide ITA No.4007/Mum/2010 AY: 2005-06, this case is pertained to the issue of jurisdiction of the CIT over the TPO for initiating proceeding u/s 263 of the Act. Since, the TPO is different from the assessing officer as he perform the transfer pricing function under the Director of Income Tax Transfer Pricing, therefore, CIT has no jurisdiction for the TPO whereas in the case of the assessee the facts are totally different pertaining to jurisdiction of territorial PCIT. The case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 71 Taxman 585 (Bom). Pertained to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tional assessing officer is bereft of the jurisdiction over particular assessee or with respect to procedure not falling under the ambit of Sec. 144B of the Act. We find that this is the case referred by the ld. Counsel wherein the Hon'ble High Court has discussed the nature of jurisdiction u/s 144B of the Act which clearly pointed out that both the jurisdictional assessing officer and NFAC have concurrent jurisdiction. In the light of the above facts and finding we consider that once the record are transferred to the jurisdictional assessing officer on completion of assessment the jurisdictional PCIT assume jurisdiction therefore can exercise power u/s 263 of the Act over the order passed by the faceless assessment unit. Therefore, we don't find any merit in the ground no. 3 of the appeal of the assessee and the same stand dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.02.2024 ============= Document 1 Project Teak Wood Units sold Pine Wood 36 Red Wood 2 Note on project This project was completed in the previous year. We had two units as stock in hand. We have sold them as pe....