TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1823
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2016-17 respectively. Since facts are same, with consent of both parties, the cases were heard together; and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No.246/SRT/2024 for AY 2013-14 is taken as 'lead' case. 2. The grounds of appeal in ITA No. 246/SRT/2024 are as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. Commissioner of the Income Tax has grievously erred in initiating the proceedings u/s.263 of the Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. Commissioner of the Income Tax has grievously erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, 1961. 3. On the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as income from other sources. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the entire proceedings are bad-in-law and invalid as assessment order for the same year was framed, wherein due inquiry was made. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has grievously erred in setting aside the assessment order u/s.147 rws.144B of the Act without pointing out as to how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. 9. It is therefore prayed that the above proposed proceedings may please be revoked as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 10. Appellant craves li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 by the AO was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue u/s 263 of the Act. He issued show cause notice to the assessee, which is at pages 8 and 9 of the order u/s 263 of the Act. The reply of the assessee in para 4.1 at pages 9 and 10 of the order u/s 263 of the Act. The finding of the ld. PCIT is at para 5 to 8 of the order u/s 263 of the Act. The appellant had submitted that appeal against order u/s 263 of the Act for AY 2017-18, in which identical issue was involved, was allowed by the Surat Tribunal in ITA No. 343/SRT/2022, dated 26.06.2023 and hence, the proceedings were initiated u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The ld. PCIT did not accept the plea of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder u/s 263 of the Act in appellant's own case (supra) for AY 2017-18 on similar issue. The ld. AR has filed various other decisions and submitted that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. He, however, submitted that since the ld. PCIT has not decided the issue on merit and has decided only to keep the issue alive, the matter may be set aside to his file to decide afresh in accordance with law. 6. On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income-tax - Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) of the revenue supported the order of the ld. PCIT. He has filed written submission wherein it was submitted that FDR interest received shown in the balance sheet is not right accounting policy as it is revenue receipt and it shoul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irectly shown in the balance sheet instead of being routed through the Income and Expenditure account. The appellant had submitted before the ld. PCIT to quash the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act for the subject year in view of the decision of the ITAT, Surat (supra). However, the ld. PCIT did not accept the contention by observing that the decision of the Tribunal has not been accepted and the Department has preferred appeal against the order of ITAT before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. For ready reference, observation of the ld. PCIT is reproduced below: "5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case from assessment records and the reply of the assessee. In the reply the assessee has stated that its appeal against order u....