Tally
coaching
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Invocation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Delhi

Brief :
The above-captioned appeals are directed against the common order dated 18.12.2019, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short

Citation :
ITA 118/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgement reserved on: 08.04.2021
Judgement pronounced on: 05.07.2021

ITA 116/2021
ITA 118/2021

PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX-01, NEW DELHI
 ....Appellant

Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Senior
Standing Counsel for the
appellant/revenue.

versus

M/S BRAHMA CENTRE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. ….Respondent

Through: Ms. Kavita Jha with Mr. Anant
Man, Advocates for the
respondent/assessee.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J:

Prefatory facts: -

1. The above-captioned appeals are directed against the common order dated 18.12.2019, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short

"Tribunal"] in ITA Nos. 4341/Del/2019 and 4342/Del/2019, concerning assessment years [in short AYs] 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, respectively.

1.1. The Tribunal, via the impugned order, has in turn set aside two separate but similar orders dated 28.03.2019, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [in short “PCIT”] in the exercise of his powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "Act"]

1.2. The PCIT has, via his orders dated 28.03.2019, interfered with the assessment orders dated 31.01.2017 and 27.09.2017 passed by the assessing officer [in short “AO”] concerning the respondent/assessee [hereafter referred to as “assessee”] pertaining to AYs 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 respectively. The assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act, although, in the opening sheet of the assessment order concerning AY 2013-2014, there is only a reference to Section 143(3) of the Act. The record also shows that, after the PCIT had passed the order dated 28.03.2019, insofar as AY 2013-2014 is concerned, the AO as directed, passed a fresh order dated 12.11.2019 under Section 143(3) of the Act by conducting “proper enquiries”.

2. The reason why the PCIT had interfered with the original assessment orders was on account of a view held by him that interest earned by the assessee against fixed deposits was adjusted, i.e., deducted from the value of the inventory and not credited to the Profit and Loss Account [in short “P&L account”]. The PCIT noted that the tax auditor, in the report filed in Form 3CD, had observed that interest earned on fixed deposits pertained to “other income” and had not been credited to the P&L account. The interest earned on fixed deposits in AY 2012-2013 was Rs.9,47,04,585/- whereas in AY 2013-2014, the interest earned on fixed deposits was Rs.4,32,91,517/-

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 19 July 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 21
downloaded 7 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags