TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1772
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is a delay of '120' days in filing of this appeal and assessee has filed condonation petition. Having perused the same, we are satisfied that there is reasonable cause for delay. So, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. At the outset, the assessee has raised many grounds, out of which, he has challenged the jurisdiction of the Ld.PCIT to have invoked his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Since it is a legal issue, we will take up this issue at first. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee had filed its return of income (RoI) for AY 2017-18 on 07.11.2017 admitting 'Nil' income. Thereafter, the CPC has passed the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 02.06.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vil Appeal Nos.2830 to 2833 of 2016 & 159 of 2019 dated 12.10.2022. According to the Ld.PCIT, Form 3CD especially column 20b shows that the employees' contribution towards PF/ESI amounting to Rs. 9,97,811/- was remitted beyond due dates mentioned in the relevant Act which warrants u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act and therefore, as per provisions of sec.2(24)(x) of the Act, a sum of Rs. 9,97,811/- remitted belatedly is to be assessed in the hands of the assessee company as income which issue has not been enquired into by the AO while framing the assessment order on 05.07.2021 and therefore, action of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, he partly set aside the assessment order dated 05.07.2021 and direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice; (iii) if the AO's order is passed by the without application of mind; or (iv) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him. In the circumstances enumerated above only the order passed by the Assessing Officer can be termed as erroneous for the purpose of S.263 of the Act. Coming next to the second limb, the AO's erroneous order can be revised by the Ld. CIT only when it is shown that the said order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. When this aspect is examined one has to understand what is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries (supra) held that this phrase i.e. "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue'' has to be read in conjunction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore, we have to examine as to whether the Ld.PCIT has rightly invoked the supervisory/revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act to find fault with the AO omitting to disallow the employee's contribution made to PF/ESI while he framed the assessment on 05.07.2021. 8. We find merit in the legal issue raised by the assessee on two counts. The first reason is that undisputedly the AO framed the assessment u/s. 153C of the Act for AY 2017-18 on 05.07.2021 which the Ld.PCIT finds fault for not following the ratio/decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate (supra). In this regard, it is noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. CIT (Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016) was dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cerns on 25.10.2018. Pursuant to it, proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act have been initiated against the assessee on 11.03.2021 and directed assessee to file RoI including that for AY 2017-18. In this regard, it is noted that the assessee had filed RoI for AY 2017-18 u/s. 139(1) of the Act on 07.11.2017 and the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act was issued dated 02.06.2018 and the time-limit to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act got expired on 30.09.2018; and taking note of the crucial facts in this case i.e. the search commenced on 25.10.2018 and consequent notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee on 11.03.2021, it can be safely presumed that assessment for AY 2017-18 was not pending before the AO on the date of search. Therefor....