TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 2013-2014. 2. The assessee has raised ground Nos.1-10 in this appeal. However, if the assessee succeeds on ground No.9 which is a preliminary issue, then adjudication on other grounds would be academic exercise. 3. Ground No.9 raised by the assessee is as under: 'The learned Respondent erred in revising the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre ('NFASC' in short) passed u/s 147 r.w. 144B of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act when in fact an appeal was pending before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi against the order which was revised by the learned Respondent involving the same subject matter of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and therefore, in violation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent Number 593842080220422 and wherein taken various grounds of appeal including a specific Ground Nos.17-20 which are as under:- "17. The Learned NFASC erred in making a disallowance of 30% of freight charges incurred by the appellant under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 25,01,941. 18. The Learned NFASC erred in disallowing 30% of freight charges incurred by the appellant for the reason that no tax was deducted at source in respect of the payments made by it when infact, the TDS provisions under Chapter XVII-B are not applicable in respect of those payments. 19. The Learned NFASC erred in disallowing 30% of freight charges incurred by the appellant without exactly stating as to which provisions u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 40(a)(ia) 40(a)(ia) of the Act is a subject matter of appeal before the Hon'ble Faceless Appellate authority and therefore, as the issue is subject matter of consideration before the authority, clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 263 prohibits the revision of the order on an issue which is a subject matter of appeal and under consideration before the first appellate authority and, even for this reason, the order of the assessing officer cannot be revised. If at all the benefit of the reduced rate of disallowance of 30% is to be withdrawn by disallowing the entire expenses, it is well within the powers of enhancement of the National Faceless Appeal Centre to disallow the same. Therefore, a parallel proceeding on the very same issue i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of section 263 of the Act when in fact an appeal was pending before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi against the order which was revised by the ld. PCIT involving the same subject matter of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and therefore, in violation of clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 263 of the Act. The ld. Counsel also referred case law citations which are as under: Sl. No Particulars Page No. 1 Kathiravan Ananthalakshmi vs ACIT: 2022 (8) TMI 1307 (Che ITAT) 10-15 2 Sainulaptheen Katheeja Umma vs ITO: 2023 (2) TMI 700 (Che ITAT) 16-21 3 Prabhu Kanimozhi vs PCIT: 2023 (5) TMI 412 (Che ITAT) 22-26 4 Golden VATS Prvt Ltd vs. ACIT: 2024 (1) TMI 550 (Che ITAT) 27-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal." 22. The above explanation makes it clear that when the appeal is pending before the Commissioner, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is barred. The Commissioner in the order dated 14.03.2012 states that the appeal pertains to the claim made by the assessee under Section 54 of the Act and it has got nothing to do with the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 54F of the Act. The said finding rendered by the Commissioner is wholly unsustainable, since the assessee went on appeal against the re-assessment order dated 31.12.2009 stating that his claim for deduction und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... even assuming, the re- assessment order is to be held as erroneous, it cannot be stated to be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as every erroneous order cannot be subject matter of Revision under Section 263 of the Act. Further more, if the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act as confirmed by the Tribunal is allowed to stand, then the very purpose of the remand order against the original re-assessment proceedings would become a fait accompli. 12. We also find that the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Renuka Philip Vs ITO has been followed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Kathiravan Ananthalakshmi And Kathiravan Srinivasam Vs ACIT [2022 (8) TMI 1307-ITAT Chennai] [ITA N....