On perusal of the records, it is seen that the A.O. Out of this Rs.55.14 cr., you have incurred an expenditure of Rs.24.32 cr.
On account of business advancement expenses, which have been allegedly incurred on gifts items distributed to various persons. “You have debited a total amount of Rs.55.14 cr. The show cause notice issued by the Pr.CIT under s.263(supra) is reproduced hereunder for the sake of ready reference: It was alleged by the Pr.CIT that the examination of records revealed that the assessment order so passed is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the reasons that the AO has failed to make adequate inquiries in respect of various issues discussed in the show cause notice and the assessment order was allegedly passed without due application of mind. Thereafter, the Pr.CIT in exercise of his revisionary power, issued show cause notice dated under s.263 of the Act requiring the assessee to show cause as to why assessment so framed u/s.143(3) is not liable to be set aside or modified. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated whereby the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.715.01 Crores as against the returned income of Rs.584.13 Crores. The relevant facts in brief are that the return of the assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment for AY 2014-15 and the assessment was completed by the AO under s. 143(3) of the Act passed by the AO cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue which is a condition precedent for usurption of revisional jurisdiction.Ĥ.
The assessee, as per grounds of appeal, essentially challenges the foundation of jurisdiction assumed by the Pr.CIT under s.263 of the Act and contends that the subject assessment order framed under s. erred in setting aside the assessment order dated 26th December, 2016 and directing the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order.”ģ. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.C.I.T. Act is ab initio void being bad in law.Ģ. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Pr.C.I.T.
The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee reads as under:. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated concerning assessment year 2014-15 was held to be erroneous in so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act and thus set aside.Ģ. The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad (‘Pr.CIT’ in short), dated wherein order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. अपीलाथ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R. BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
0 kommentar(er)
