LOUIS DREYFUS COMPANY INDIA PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT - 5, NEW DELHI

Appellant by: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. and Shri Akshay Uppal, CA Respondent by: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 13 10 2020 Date of pronouncement: 27 11 2020 O R D E R

PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

, the assessee has raised following grounds:-

1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 31.03.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Delhi [‘PCIT’] under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio.

2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by PCIT under section 263 of the Act is beyond jurisdiction and bad in law, since the same has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant and in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in setting aside the final assessment order dated 30.05.2017 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act and in directing the assessing officer to undertake assessment de novo, without appreciating that the twin conditions that are sine qua non for exercising reversionary powers under section 263 of the Act, viz., assessment order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, were not satisfied in the Appellant’s case. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order without appreciating that relevant details/ documents pertaining to issues raised in show cause notice issued under section 263 were already furnished by the Appellant and duly examined by the assessing officer during the course of original assessment proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 144C, thereby ousting jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 4.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order by exercising powers under section 263 of the Act, without appreciating that it was not a case of lack of enquiry. 4.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in not appreciating that the view taken by the assessing officer in respect of the various issues which were subject matter of show cause notice issued under section 263 of the Act, was a plausible view. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order, without recording any prima facie findings on the merits of the various issues raised in the show cause notice issued under section 263 of the Act, thereby not demonstrating how and why the final assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act without appreciating that as the original assessment order under section 143(3)/ 144C of the Act was passed with the approval/ sanction of the DRP, comprising of a collegium of three Commissioners of Income-tax [‘CIT’], the same was not amenable to revision under section 263 of the Act. 6.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in not appreciating that CIT of co-ordinate rank cannot assume jurisdiction under section 263 in respect of assessment order passed under section 144C( 13) of the Act with the statutory approval of another CIT, in the present case, by DRP comprising of three CITs.”

2. At the outset, ld. senior counsel for the assessee, Mr. Ajay Vohra submitted that this is second order passed u/s.263 for the same assessment year; as first was against draft assessment order which has been quashed. Now second revisionary order u/s.263 has been passed cancelling the final assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) on 30.05.2017. The ld. CIT has issued a notice on 18th March, 2020 for compliance on 23.03.2020 and this fact has also been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the impugned order. Notice was also sent through speed post. Ld. Counsel pointed out that, during that period due to rise of Covid-19 pandemic, lots of restrictions on working were imposed and finally on 23rd March, 2020, all India lockdown was announced and all the offices were shutdown. Despite that, assessee sent a reply through e-mail on 23.06.2020 that it had not received any notice issued from office of Pr.CIT for which hearing was scheduled for 23rd March, 2020. It was informed that office of the company was locked due to announcement by Prime Minister for Covid-19 pandemic. Again notice was sent through e-mail by Pr.CIT on evening of 25th March asking the assessee-company to file reply on the issue mentioned in the notice before 12th noon on 26th March, 2020. However, the ld. Pr.CIT without giving any opportunity passed the order had set aside the impugned order and directed the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment proceedings denovo. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is a gross violation of principle of natural justice, and therefore, such an order cannot be sustained.