Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, PUNE
ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. 4, dated 31-03-2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as per the following grounds of appeal.
1. Ld CIT erred in law and on facts in invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 and setting aside Assessment Order for fresh assessment on the ground that assessment has been framed without proper verification and without applying relevant provisions of the Act.
2. Ld CIT erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that during assessment proceedings, the ld AO has applied his mind after proper enquiries an adopted a course permissible in law. 3. The Ld CIT erred in law and on facts in disregarding the enquiries made by Id AO during Assessment proceedings and the submissions made by the assesse in connection with Genuineness of Share Application Money and also the applicability of See 56(2)(viia). 4. The Order of the Id CIT being unjustified in law and on facts may kindly be cancelled. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”
Urjafuture Systems (I) P.Ltd. A.Y. 2015-16
The solitary grievance of the assessee in this case is the assumption of revisionary jurisdiction and passing order by the ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel referring to the grounds of appeal
submitted that the order u/s 263 has been passed without proper verification and without application of mind by the ld. Pr. C.I.T and that there has not been adequate queries conducted by the ld. Pr. C.I.T. The ld. Counsel further emphasized that it was the covid 19 period when the hearing was scheduled and though on the initial date of hearing, the Director of the Company Mr. Vikram Kothari had appeared along with Chartered Accountant of the assessee-company but due to the lockdown on account of Covid 19 pendemic subsequently, the assessee did not comply with the hearing notice because of the circumstances prevailing during that point of time. This fact is evident from para 3 of the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. The ld. D.R also conceded to these facts and submitted that he does not have any objection if the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld. Pr. CIT for re-adjudication as per law.
3. Having heard the parties and on perusal of the order passed by the ld. Pr. C.I.T. of the Act specifically para 3 of his order, it is clear that due to the lockdown and pandemic situation prevailing during that time the assessee was prevented from not appearing hearing before the ld. Pr. C.I.T. It is therefore, crystal clear that the ld. Pr. C.I.T did not get an opportunity to examine the point of view of the assessee vis-à-vis the assessment order. The assessee also could not represent their case on merits during the proceedings before the ld. Pr. C.I.T. In the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that one more opportunity is desirable in this matter and the case needs to be re-adjudicated after due verification by the ld. Pr. C.I.T. while assuming revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. In view thereof, we set aside the order of the ld. Pr. C.I.T. and remand the matter back to his file with directions hereinabove. In the result, the grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
Urjafuture Systems (I) P.Ltd. A.Y. 2015-16
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.