R.S. MEGA REALTORS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 13, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6867/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 June 2020AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee no longer wished to press the appeal as they were satisfied with the order giving effect passed by the AO. The Departmental Representative did not oppose this request.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The PCIT had set aside an issue determined by the Assessing Officer (AO) and directed the AO to decide it afresh.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 based on a change of opinion without pointing out any error in the AO's order. The appeal was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)
For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (DR)
Hearing: 16/06/2020Pronounced: 18/06/2020

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (for short ‘the. Pr. CIT- 13, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009-10, whereby the Ld. Pr. CIT has set aside one of the issues determined by the AO after exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) and directed the AO to decide the same afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

2.

The assessee has challenged the impugned order the order on the following grounds:

1. “In the facts of the case and in Law, the learned PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 to the case of the Appellant only by way of change of opinion, without pointing out any error in the 2 Assessment Year: 2009-10 order of the A.O. and also by disregarding detailed submissions made to him from time to time.

2. In the facts of the case and in Law, the Show Cause Notice & or order u/s 263 alleging errors and prejudice, itself is erroneous on many counts as follows a. In the facts of the case and in law, the learned PCIT has erred in invoking the provision of sec. 263 merely because he wants to take a view different from the one taken by the Assessing Officer and thereby changing the opinion of the Assessing Officer by his opinion. b. In the fats of the case and in law, the learned PCIT has erred in holding that Assessing Officer failed to verify the sources of share application money as well as creditworthiness of the creditors even though all the details were furnished to the Assessing Officer. c. In the facts of the case and in Law, the learned PCIT has erred in disregarding the following facts: Sr. Date Particulars No. 1. 31.10.2016 Assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 accepting share capital and share premium 2. 13.11.2014 Assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 accepting share capital and share premium. [B] Relief Prayed:

The appellant therefore prays as follows, 1. To quash the order u/s 263 because PCIT had no jurisdiction.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee does not want to press the present appeal as the assessee is satisfied with the order giving effect passed by the AO. Hence, the assessee may be permitted to withdraw the same.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not oppose the application filed by the assessee. Hence, we allow the application for withdrawal of the appeal and dismiss the present appeal as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →