Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.82 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 143 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai vs M/S. Alagendran Finance Ltd on 27 July, 2007
013. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials
available on record, we find that in this case, the assessment was
framed u/s 143/ 147 of the Act vide order dated 25.03.2016 after the
case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. We note that the issue in the
Page | 7
Barik Biswas; A.Y. 08-09 to 16-17 & 20-21
said reopening of assessment as recorded in the reasons to believe
was with regard to cash deposited in the assessee's bank account.
Thereafter the ld. Pr. CIT revised the said assessment order vide its
revisionary order u/s 263 of the Act dated 20.11.2017, directing the
ld. AO to pass the assessment afresh after examining the issue of
violation of section 40A(3) of the Act with regard to purchases. We
note that the issue on which the reopening was made vis a vis the
issue on which the revisionary order was passed were two different
issues and therefore, the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 dated
25.03.2016 is not amenable to revision u/s 263 of the Act, as the
issue on which the reopening was made was completely different.
Therefore, we find merit in the contention of the assessee that the
revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act
and the order passed consequently dated 20.11.2017 were bad in
law. Consequently all the proceedings, thereafter are also invalid and
bad in law. Thus, the case of the assessee find support from the
decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran
Finance Ltd (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the
order u/s 263 of the Act on an issue which was not subject matter of
reassessment order. Moreover, if the order which was to be revised
was the order passed u/s 143(1) and not u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act
but that has become barred by limitation as on 31st March 2017.
Keshab Narayan Banerjee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 28 August, 1998
We
also note that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court was followed by
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Lark Chemicals Ltd.
(supra) and also by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Keshab
Narayan Banerjee Vs CIT & Another (supra). Therefore, we are
inclined to hold that the assessment framed u/s 144/263 of the Act
dated 20.12.2018 is invalid and is hereby quashed on the ground that
the same was framed in pursuance to invalid revisionary order passed
u/s 263 of the Act.
National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 December, 1996
06. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on
record, we find that the assessee has raised an additional ground
challenging the assessment framed in the set aside proceedings to be
invalid as the revisionary order revising the assessment was itself
invalid and nullity. In our opinion the issued raised in the additional
ground is a purely a legal issue which goes to the root of the issue qua
which all the facts are available in the appeal folder and no further
verification of facts are required from any quarter whatsoever. In our
considered view the assessee is at liberty to raise any legal issue
before any appellate authority for the first time even when the same
has not been raised before the lower authorities. The case of the
assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Apex court in the
case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT (supra) ii) National
Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT (supra) and also by the decision of
Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd.
(supra). Therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for
adjudication.
Pcit vs Britannia Industries Ltd on 13 July, 2018
06. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on
record, we find that the assessee has raised an additional ground
challenging the assessment framed in the set aside proceedings to be
invalid as the revisionary order revising the assessment was itself
invalid and nullity. In our opinion the issued raised in the additional
ground is a purely a legal issue which goes to the root of the issue qua
which all the facts are available in the appeal folder and no further
verification of facts are required from any quarter whatsoever. In our
considered view the assessee is at liberty to raise any legal issue
before any appellate authority for the first time even when the same
has not been raised before the lower authorities. The case of the
assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Apex court in the
case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT (supra) ii) National
Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT (supra) and also by the decision of
Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd.
(supra). Therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for
adjudication.
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 vs M/S Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Through ... on 5 October, 2018
We
also note that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court was followed by
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Lark Chemicals Ltd.
(supra) and also by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Keshab
Narayan Banerjee Vs CIT & Another (supra). Therefore, we are
inclined to hold that the assessment framed u/s 144/263 of the Act
dated 20.12.2018 is invalid and is hereby quashed on the ground that
the same was framed in pursuance to invalid revisionary order passed
u/s 263 of the Act.