CENTRAL ELECTRICITY SUPPLY UTILITY OF ORISSA(CESU),BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(`1), BHUBANESWAR

Shri Akshaya Kumar Mohapatra, Akshaya Kumar Mohapatra, ld AR appeared for d AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the original assessment order came to It was submitted by ld AR that the original assessment order came to It was submitted by ld AR that the original assessment order came to be passed u/s. 143(3) on 23.6.2021 be passed u/s. 143(3) on 23.6.2021. It was the submission that the . It was the submission that the P a g e 1 | 3 assessment was completed under scrutiny assessment. It was the submission that the ld Pr. CIT, Bhubaenswar-1 has initiated proceedings u/s.263 of the Act, to which, the assessee had responded, wherein, it was categorically mentioned that the assessee has provided all the details before the Assessing Officer in the course of original assessment. It was the submission that still the Ld. Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar-1 has directed the Assessing Officer to do re-verification and this is not permissible in the revisionary proceedings u/s.263 of the Act.

In reply, ld CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the ld Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar-1.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order passed u/s.263 by ld Pr. CIT, Bhubaenswar-1 clearly shows that one of the issues in the revisionary proceedings is the expenditure amounting to Rs.3.97 crores pertaining to earlier assessment year but paid during the relevant financial year. When this is considered with the issues which are mentioned in the assessment order, it clearly shows that this issue has not been considered by the Assessing Officer. Next issue raised is in regard to depreciation, which is admittedly not an issue which has been looked into by the Assessing Officer in the course of original assessment. Similar is with the proposals for bad debts and other issues which are raised by ld. Pr. CIT. The ld AR has not brought before us any evidences in the form of notice u/s.142(1) or notice u/s.143(2) calling for information by the P a g e 2 | 3 Assessing Officer nor produced before the Assessing Officer in the course of original assessment to substantiate his claim that the issues have already been considered by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order. This being so, we are of the considered view that the order passed u/s.263, wherein, the ld. Pr. CIT has directed the Assessing Officer to verify the details produced by the assessee after affording adequate opportunity to substantiate his claim, is very much within the revisionary proceedings u/s.263 of the Act.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30/07/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 30/07/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to :