2024 (8) TMI 1672

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....one another. 2. The order passed by learned Pr. CIT-6, Ahmedabad is bad a in law and void ab initio as the same has been passed after the limitation period. 3. The learned Pr. CIT-6 failed to consider the fact that the issue under revision on additions/disallowances is already before the appellate authority and therefore such issue is beyond the jurisdiction by virtue of Explanation 1(c) of Section 263 of the Act. 4. The order passed u/s. 263 of the Act by the learned Pr. CIT is totally unjustified on facts as also in law therefore the same may kindly be quashed." 3. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 19.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs. (-) 31,52,060/-. The same was processed under Section 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wherein the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order which was restoked back by the ITAT to the file of the CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that the show cause notice of the PCIT issued under Section 263 of the Act did not categorically give the finding that the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice issued is vague and factually incorrect and does not categorically conclude that the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial and hence Section 263 Order needs to be quashed. The Ld. AR further submitted that the PCIT in paragraph no.3 observed that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence and in paragraph no.4 he stated that the Assessing Officer has without application of mind and without veri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice to the assessee. The AR relied upon the decision in case of CIT vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority [2019] 107 taxmann.com 18 (Bombay) and CIT vs. Smt. A.S. Narendrakumar [1988] 41 Taxman 226 (Bombay). Since the assessee is already before the CIT(A), order under Section 263 of the Act itself is bad in law and the powers of the CIT(A) are coterminous with that of Assessing Officer and consequently the CIT(A) applied Section 115BBE and gave direction to the Assessing Officer accordingly. Consequently, both the PCIT and CIT(A) cannot have jurisdiction on the same issue. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT [1990] 53 Taxman 85. The Ld. AR submitted that he intended ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bmitted that the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act should have been made addition in consonance of Section 68 of the Act and thereby the tax should have been calculated as per Section 115BBE of the Act which the Assessing Officer failed to do so and, therefore, the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Ld. DR further submitted that the PCIT has rightly invoked Section 263 of the Act and directed correctly to the Assessing Officer to calculate the tax as per Section 115BBE of the Act. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. There is a delay of 451 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee....