2025 (8) TMI 1677

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO, even though the same was set aside by the learned PCIT under section 264 of the Act by an order dated 28th March 2021. 3. Before dealing with the specific issue arising from the orders of the authorities below, it is necessary to briefly refer to the history of the case. In this case, the original assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act vide order dated 27th December 2019. An addition of Rs.20,78,000 was made on account of cash deposits in the bank. The assessee filed a revision application under section 264 of the Act. The learned PCIT, vide order dated 28th March 2021, set aside the assessment order. The learned PCIT in his order also obse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. 9. We have heard both parties and considered the materials on record. The controversy here is whether the assessment made under section 144 of the Act dated 27th December 2019 was quashed by the learned PCIT under section 264 vide order dated 28the March 2021. In this regard, we refer to the observations made by the learned PCIT under section 264 of the Act, which are reproduced below: "7. Therefore, under the powers u/s 264 of the IT Act-the assessment order for the A.Y. 2017-18 dated 27.12.2019 is set aside. The petitioner shall periodically cheek the e-filing portal to ensure that h communications of the department is responded to, on time, during the assessment proceed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le Supreme Court in the case of Seghu Buchhaiah Shetty 52 ITR 532. The same view has been taken in this case also. Accordingly in our opinion, on earlier occasion, the Tribunal had quashed the asst. order passed by the AO which is on the basis of 26AS and there is no direction to do any fresh assessment." 10.1 We also note that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Fu Sheen Tannery reported in 134 Taxman 25 held as follows: 6. It is needless to mention here that no direction for reassessment has been given in the order impugned. It is, therefore, clear that the appellate authority was quite conscious of the admission of the assessing authority that if the matter is remanded for fresh assessment it would require consider....