NILKANTH DEALCOM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

The assessee is a company and filed its return of income electronically on 25/01/2014 disclosing total income of Rs.32,12,660/-. Consequentially on 13/03/2014 and subsequent dates, search operations u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the official premises of the assessee. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to assessee on 20/10/2014. In response, the assessee furnished return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 07/04/2014 disclosing total income of Rs.32,12,660/-. Later notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 19/08/2015. The assessment was completed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act on 30/03/2016, after taking prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of India, Central Range-1, Kolkata, u/s 153D of the Act, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.32,12,660/-. 2.1. The ld. Pr. CIT issued a showcause notice u/s 263 of the Act, dt. 06/03/2018, proposing to revise the assessment order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act on 30/03/2016, for the reason that, the assessee company had not justified, its claim of having incurred expenditure on account of (a) Business Development Expenses of Rs.18,89,250/- & (b) Business promotion expenses of Rs. 36,06,750/- and that the Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. Assessing Officer in the assessment order dt. 30/03/2016 had not called for the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dt. 30/03/2016 had not called for the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dt. 30/03/2016 had not called for the details of expenditure under these head diture under these head of account to verify the genuineness and to verify the genuineness and nature of the expenses. After considering the reply of the assessee, the ld. Pr. CIT set After considering the reply of the assessee, the ld. Pr. CIT set After considering the reply of the assessee, the ld. Pr. CIT set aside the assessment order dt. 30/03/2016 to the file of the Assessing Officer, with a aside the assessment order dt. 30/03/2016 to the file of the Assessing Officer, with a aside the assessment order dt. 30/03/2016 to the file of the Assessing Officer, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to e Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after examination pass a fresh assessment order after examination and verification of expenses incurred for and verification of expenses incurred for, business development and for business business development and for business promotion. The Assessing Officer was basically directed to examine the genuineness promotion. The Assessing Officer was basically directed to examine the genuineness promotion. The Assessing Officer was basically directed to examine the genuineness of the expenses and also to examine whether the expenses under these two head of lso to examine whether the expenses under these two head of lso to examine whether the expenses under these two head of expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.

Aggrieve the assessee is in appeal before us. Aggrieve the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Miraj D. Shah, submitted th The ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Miraj D. Shah, submitted th The ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Miraj D. Shah, submitted that during the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer had called for details by issuing notice assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer had called for details by issuing notice assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer had called for details by issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, dt. 17/08/2015. He drew the attention of the Bench to the u/s 142(1) of the Act, dt. 17/08/2015. He drew the attention of the Bench to the u/s 142(1) of the Act, dt. 17/08/2015. He drew the attention of the Bench to the Questionnaire issued by the Assessing Officer during the original assessmen issued by the Assessing Officer during the original assessmen issued by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings, specifically to point no. 14 and the reply given specifically to point no. 14 and the reply given to this query by the to this query by the assessee and submitted that the Assessing Officer had called for all the information and submitted that the Assessing Officer had called for all the information and submitted that the Assessing Officer had called for all the information and details of expenditure incurred incurred and that the assessee has furnished the same and that the assessee has furnished the same. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has that the Assessing Officer has, after examining these details had come to a after examining these details had come to a conclusion that the expenditure is genuine and was incurred for the purpose of conclusion that the expenditure is genuine and was incurred for the purpose of conclusion that the expenditure is genuine and was incurred for the purpose of business and then only had allowed the same. He further submitted that the accounts had allowed the same. He further submitted that the accounts had allowed the same. He further submitted that the accounts of the assessee has been audited u/s 44AB of the Act and this audited expenditure ssessee has been audited u/s 44AB of the Act and this audited expenditure ssessee has been audited u/s 44AB of the Act and this audited expenditure was accepted by the Assessing Officer as genuine and as was accepted by the Assessing Officer as genuine and as expenditure incurred wholly incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business while passing the assessment order u/s and exclusively for the purpose of business while passing the assessment order u/s and exclusively for the purpose of business while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30/03/2016. ct on 30/03/2016. 4.1. He relied on a number of case He relied on a number of case-law for the proposition that the o law for the proposition that the order passed u/s 263 of the Act, under such circumstances, u/s 263 of the Act, under such circumstances, directing the Assessing Officer to once the Assessing Officer to once again examine whether this whether this expenditure is genuine or not and as to whet and as to whether it was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, is bad in law. He pointed bad in law. He pointed out that the ld. Pr. CIT has not conducted any investigation/verification out that the ld. Pr. CIT has not conducted any investigation/verification out that the ld. Pr. CIT has not conducted any investigation/verification of his own and in a very general and casual and casual manner remanded the matter for verificat manner remanded the matter for verification of these two expenditure, to the file of the Assessing Officer to the file of the Assessing Officer, by wrongly invoking his by wrongly invoking his Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. powers u/s 263 of the Act. For the sake of brevity, we do not extract the case powers u/s 263 of the Act. For the sake of brevity, we do not extract the case powers u/s 263 of the Act. For the sake of brevity, we do not extract the case-law relied upon. We would be dealing the . We would be dealing the case-law during the course of our findings. during the course of our findings. 4.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the order u/s The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the order u/s The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the order u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act is passed after obtaining statutory approval of the 153A/143(3) of the Act is passed after obtaining statutory approval of the 153A/143(3) of the Act is passed after obtaining statutory approval of the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 153D of the Act and under such Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 153D of the Act and under such Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 153D of the Act and under such circumstances, keeping in v circumstances, keeping in view the wording of the Section, the legislative intent and iew the wording of the Section, the legislative intent and the CBDT Circular on the matter, the ld. Pr. CIT, cannot revise the assessment order the CBDT Circular on the matter, the ld. Pr. CIT, cannot revise the assessment order the CBDT Circular on the matter, the ld. Pr. CIT, cannot revise the assessment order passed with such prior statutory approval, without passed with such prior statutory approval, without revising the order of revising the order of approval u/s 153D of the Act. He submit He submitted that this is not a case where no enquiry has been ted that this is not a case where no enquiry has been conducted and it is not for the ld. Pr. CIT conducted and it is not for the ld. Pr. CIT, to substitute his view as to the extent of to the extent of enquiry and investigation, to and investigation, to that of the Assessing Officer. He prayed that as the He prayed that as the assessment order in this case was passed after obtaining approval u/s 153D of the ment order in this case was passed after obtaining approval u/s 153D of the ment order in this case was passed after obtaining approval u/s 153D of the Act and as such approval has not been set aside or held to be bad in law by any Act and as such approval has not been set aside or held to be bad in law by any Act and as such approval has not been set aside or held to be bad in law by any authority, the ld. Pr. CIT has no power to exercise his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act authority, the ld. Pr. CIT has no power to exercise his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act authority, the ld. Pr. CIT has no power to exercise his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act for revising the assessment order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act dt. 30/03/2016 the assessment order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act dt. 30/03/2016 the assessment order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act dt. 30/03/2016 and hence such order is void ab initio void ab initio in law.

The ld. D/R, on the other hand, opposed the contentions of the assessee and The ld. D/R, on the other hand, opposed the contentions of the assessee and The ld. D/R, on the other hand, opposed the contentions of the assessee and submitted that this is a case where the assessee is in the submitted that this is a case where the assessee is in the business of granting loans business of granting loans and advances. The assessee is engaged in the business of money lending and earning and advances. The assessee is engaged in the business of money lending and earning and advances. The assessee is engaged in the business of money lending and earning interest therefrom. He submitted that the expenditure claimed by the assessee has interest therefrom. He submitted that the expenditure claimed by the assessee has interest therefrom. He submitted that the expenditure claimed by the assessee has having been incurred for business development expenses and busin having been incurred for business development expenses and busin having been incurred for business development expenses and business promotion expenses are, on the face of it expenses are, on the face of it, not justified has having been incurred wholly and not justified has having been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The ld. D/R submitted that the Assessing exclusively for the purpose of business. The ld. D/R submitted that the Assessing exclusively for the purpose of business. The ld. D/R submitted that the Assessing Officer has not examined the genuineness of the expenditure nor has he examin Officer has not examined the genuineness of the expenditure nor has he examin Officer has not examined the genuineness of the expenditure nor has he examined as to whether this expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the to whether this expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the to whether this expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the company. He argued that merely giving a notice and calling for business of the company. He argued that merely giving a notice and calling for business of the company. He argued that merely giving a notice and calling for information and putting the information in the assessment folder and putting the information in the assessment folder does not lead to a does not lead to a conclusion that the expenditure was examined by the Assessing Officer. He also that the expenditure was examined by the Assessing Officer. He also that the expenditure was examined by the Assessing Officer. He also disputed the claim of the assessee that once books of account are audited, it has to be disputed the claim of the assessee that once books of account are audited, it has to be disputed the claim of the assessee that once books of account are audited, it has to be considered that the expenditure incurred is that the expenditure incurred is genuine and incurred for the purpose of genuine and incurred for the purpose of business. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has the right and duty to examine bmitted that the Assessing Officer has the right and duty to examine bmitted that the Assessing Officer has the right and duty to examine Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. the genuineness of an audited expenditure. the genuineness of an audited expenditure. He submitted that the Assessing Officer He submitted that the Assessing Officer has mechanically collected information without verifying the same and without has mechanically collected information without verifying the same and without has mechanically collected information without verifying the same and without applying his mind to the applying his mind to the information collected, has accepted the claims of the has accepted the claims of the assessee. He relied on the order of the ld. Pr. CIT and submitted that, non assessee. He relied on the order of the ld. Pr. CIT and submitted that, non assessee. He relied on the order of the ld. Pr. CIT and submitted that, non-application of mind and non-verification verification of the claim made by assessee is an error which is is an error which is prejudicial to the interest of the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and that under those circumstances, the ld. under those circumstances, the ld. Pr. CIT has rightly invoked his powers u/s 263 of the Act Pr. CIT has rightly invoked his powers u/s 263 of the Act. On the arguments made by n the arguments made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the order passed u/s 153D of the Act, of the Act, was not revised or cancelled and hence the revised or cancelled and hence the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, cannot be revised, order u/s 143(3) of the Act, cannot be revised, the ld. D/R submitted that once the assessment order is set aside, automatically, the ld. D/R submitted that once the assessment order is set aside, automatically, the ld. D/R submitted that once the assessment order is set aside, automatically, the order of approval passed u/s 153D of the Act has to be considered as set aside. order of approval passed u/s 153D of the Act has to be considered as set aside. order of approval passed u/s 153D of the Act has to be considered as set aside.

We have heard rival contentions. On ca We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and reful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows: below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 7. We first take up the legal argument that, order u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act, We first take up the legal argument that, order u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act, We first take up the legal argument that, order u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act, cannot be revised without cancelling the order of statutory approval given by the JCIT cannot be revised without cancelling the order of statutory approval given by the JCIT cannot be revised without cancelling the order of statutory approval given by the JCIT u/s 153D of the Act. On this same issue, t On this same issue, the Hyderabad Bench of the ITAT in the case of he Hyderabad Bench of the ITAT in the case of Shri Ch. Krishna Murthy vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Hyderabad reporte Krishna Murthy vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Hyderabad reporte Krishna Murthy vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Hyderabad reported in 2013 (3) TMI 359 – ITAT Hyderabad, has held as follows: has held as follows:- “23. At this stage, one has to remember, the settled position of law is, for invoking “23. At this stage, one has to remember, the settled position of law is, for invoking “23. At this stage, one has to remember, the settled position of law is, for invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, two conditions have to be satisfied cumulatively. jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, two conditions have to be satisfied cumulatively. jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, two conditions have to be satisfied cumulatively. Firstly, order must be er Firstly, order must be erroneous and secondly it must be prejudicial to the interests of roneous and secondly it must be prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In absence Ch. Krishna Murt hy of any one of the two conditions, the power revenue. In absence Ch. Krishna Murt hy of any one of the two conditions, the power revenue. In absence Ch. Krishna Murt hy of any one of the two conditions, the power conferred u/s 263 cannot be exercised. On a perusal of the assessment order as a conferred u/s 263 cannot be exercised. On a perusal of the assessment order as a conferred u/s 263 cannot be exercised. On a perusal of the assessment order as a whole, specifically, para 1 whole, specifically, para 17, it is very much evident that Assessing Officer was 7, it is very much evident that Assessing Officer was conscious about the fact that Barium Division was having outstanding liability of the conscious about the fact that Barium Division was having outstanding liability of the conscious about the fact that Barium Division was having outstanding liability of the advance given by Chrome Division at the time of demerger. He was also aware of the advance given by Chrome Division at the time of demerger. He was also aware of the advance given by Chrome Division at the time of demerger. He was also aware of the fact that outstanding liability w fact that outstanding liability was converted as advance given to assessee against as converted as advance given to assessee against which shares of newly formed company i.e. VBCPL were allotted to assessee and his which shares of newly formed company i.e. VBCPL were allotted to assessee and his which shares of newly formed company i.e. VBCPL were allotted to assessee and his associates. Therefore, it is clear from the assessment order that Assessing Officer has associates. Therefore, it is clear from the assessment order that Assessing Officer has associates. Therefore, it is clear from the assessment order that Assessing Officer has examined the issue of conversion of examined the issue of conversion of the outstanding liability of Barium Division to the outstanding liability of Barium Division to advance in the name of assessee through journal entries as well as allotment of advance in the name of assessee through journal entries as well as allotment of advance in the name of assessee through journal entries as well as allotment of shares against such advance to assessee and his family members. Furthermore, from shares against such advance to assessee and his family members. Furthermore, from shares against such advance to assessee and his family members. Furthermore, from Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. para 2.3 of impugned order of learned CIT, it para 2.3 of impugned order of learned CIT, it becomes clear that Assessing Officer becomes clear that Assessing Officer while forwarding the draft assessment order for approval, after considering while forwarding the draft assessment order for approval, after considering while forwarding the draft assessment order for approval, after considering appraisal report has proposed to treat the conversion of outstanding liability of appraisal report has proposed to treat the conversion of outstanding liability of appraisal report has proposed to treat the conversion of outstanding liability of Barium Division as advance to assessee in the books of VCPL a Barium Division as advance to assessee in the books of VCPL as deemed dividend u/s s deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e). However, while according his approval in terms with 2(22)(e). However, while according his approval in terms with section 153D section 153D, Addl. CIT, who is range head directed Assessing Officer not to make addition u/s 2(22)( CIT, who is range head directed Assessing Officer not to make addition u/s 2(22)( CIT, who is range head directed Assessing Officer not to make addition u/s 2(22)(e). The reasoning of the Addl. CIT is, advance created in the name of assessee was only The reasoning of the Addl. CIT is, advance created in the name of assessee was only The reasoning of the Addl. CIT is, advance created in the name of assessee was only through book entry and no payment was made and secondly, there was no through book entry and no payment was made and secondly, there was no through book entry and no payment was made and secondly, there was no accumulated profits of the company, which is a prerequisite for invoking provisions accumulated profits of the company, which is a prerequisite for invoking provisions accumulated profits of the company, which is a prerequisite for invoking provisions of section 2(22)(e). Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that . Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that . Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that not only Assessing Officer has examined the issue, but, he has also passed the order in not only Assessing Officer has examined the issue, but, he has also passed the order in not only Assessing Officer has examined the issue, but, he has also passed the order in consequence to the directions of his higher aut consequence to the directions of his higher authority in terms with section 153D section 153D of the Act. ITAT, Pune Bench in case of Akil Gulamali Somji Vs. ITO in to the Act. ITAT, Pune Bench in case of Akil Gulamali Somji Vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 455 to the Act. ITAT, Pune Bench in case of Akil Gulamali Somji Vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 455 to 458/PN/2010 dt. 30/03/2012 while holding the conditions imposed u/s 153D to be 458/PN/2010 dt. 30/03/2012 while holding the conditions imposed u/s 153D to be 458/PN/2010 dt. 30/03/2012 while holding the conditions imposed u/s 153D to be of mandatory nature, referred to clause 9 of Manual of Office Procedure, Volume II ndatory nature, referred to clause 9 of Manual of Office Procedure, Volume II ndatory nature, referred to clause 9 of Manual of Office Procedure, Volume II (Technical) February 2003 issued by Directorate of (Technical) February 2003 issued by Directorate of Income-tax on Ch. Krishna tax on Ch. Krishna Murthy behalf of CBDT, which reads as under: hy behalf of CBDT, which reads as under: "9. Approval for assessment : An assessment order under "9. Approval for assessment : An assessment order under Chapter XIV Chapter XIV-B can be passed only with the previous approval of the range JCIT/ADDL.CIT. (For be passed only with the previous approval of the range JCIT/ADDL.CIT. (For be passed only with the previous approval of the range JCIT/ADDL.CIT. (For the period from 30 the period from 30-6-1995 to 31-1 2-1996 the approving authority was the 1996 the approving authority was the CIT.) The Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such CIT.) The Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such CIT.) The Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such approval we approval well in time. The submission of the draft order must be docketed in ll in time. The submission of the draft order must be docketed in the order the order-sheet and a copy of the draft order and covering letter filed in the sheet and a copy of the draft order and covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Due opportunity of being heard relevant miscellaneous records folder. Due opportunity of being heard relevant miscellaneous records folder. Due opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee by the su should be given to the assessee by the supervisory officer giving approval to pervisory officer giving approval to the proposed block assessment, at least one month before the time barring the proposed block assessment, at least one month before the time barring the proposed block assessment, at least one month before the time barring date. Finally once such approval is granted, it must be in writing and filed in date. Finally once such approval is granted, it must be in writing and filed in date. Finally once such approval is granted, it must be in writing and filed in the relevant folder indicated above after making a due entry in t the relevant folder indicated above after making a due entry in t the relevant folder indicated above after making a due entry in the order- sheet. The assessment order can be passed only after the receipt of such sheet. The assessment order can be passed only after the receipt of such sheet. The assessment order can be passed only after the receipt of such approval. The fact that such approval has been obtained should also be approval. The fact that such approval has been obtained should also be approval. The fact that such approval has been obtained should also be mentioned in the body of the assessment order itself." mentioned in the body of the assessment order itself." Thus, from the aforesaid facts it becomes clear Thus, from the aforesaid facts it becomes clear, the Assessing Officer while exercising , the Assessing Officer while exercising power u/s 153A has to pass the assessment order as per the approval granted by power u/s 153A has to pass the assessment order as per the approval granted by power u/s 153A has to pass the assessment order as per the approval granted by addl. CIT u/s 153D. In these circumstances, Assessing Officer having examined the addl. CIT u/s 153D. In these circumstances, Assessing Officer having examined the addl. CIT u/s 153D. In these circumstances, Assessing Officer having examined the issue and applied his mind to the facts and having pas issue and applied his mind to the facts and having passed the order in terms with the sed the order in terms with the directions of the Range Head as per the statutory provisions contained u/s 153D, the directions of the Range Head as per the statutory provisions contained u/s 153D, the directions of the Range Head as per the statutory provisions contained u/s 153D, the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous. In fact ld. CIT has blamed the range assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous. In fact ld. CIT has blamed the range assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous. In fact ld. CIT has blamed the range head for the directions given by him while approving head for the directions given by him while approving the draft assessment order. the draft assessment order. Therefore, if at all, there is any error, it is in the order of the range head and not in Therefore, if at all, there is any error, it is in the order of the range head and not in Therefore, if at all, there is any error, it is in the order of the range head and not in the assessment order. Without revising the directions of addl. CIT, assessment order the assessment order. Without revising the directions of addl. CIT, assessment order the assessment order. Without revising the directions of addl. CIT, assessment order could not be revised.

Furthermore, it is clear 24. Furthermore, it is clear from the discussions made by ld. CIT, the reasons on from the discussions made by ld. CIT, the reasons on which range head i.e. Addl. CIT disapproved treating the advance as deemed dividend which range head i.e. Addl. CIT disapproved treating the advance as deemed dividend which range head i.e. Addl. CIT disapproved treating the advance as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) is because it is converted as advance in the name of assessee merely u/s 2(22)(e) is because it is converted as advance in the name of assessee merely u/s 2(22)(e) is because it is converted as advance in the name of assessee merely through book entries and actually no through book entries and actually no money was advanced to assessee and secondly money was advanced to assessee and secondly Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. the company i.e. VCPL was not having accum the company i.e. VCPL was not having accumulated profits Ch. Krishna Murt ulated profits Ch. Krishna Murthy at the time of such payment. Though, learned CIT has accepted the fact that in reality no time of such payment. Though, learned CIT has accepted the fact that in reality no time of such payment. Though, learned CIT has accepted the fact that in reality no money was advanced by the company to assessee, money was advanced by the company to assessee, but, according to him, by virtue of but, according to him, by virtue of such a transaction assessee and his family members have become owner of shares such a transaction assessee and his family members have become owner of shares such a transaction assessee and his family members have become owner of shares worth Rs. 4 crores in the newly formed company. According to him, in these worth Rs. 4 crores in the newly formed company. According to him, in these worth Rs. 4 crores in the newly formed company. According to him, in these circumstances, journal entries passed in the books of account by circumstances, journal entries passed in the books of account by converting the converting the outstanding liability of the newly formed company as advance given to assessee will outstanding liability of the newly formed company as advance given to assessee will outstanding liability of the newly formed company as advance given to assessee will attract provisions of section 2(22)(e) section 2(22)(e). In this context, he has relied upon a decision of . In this context, he has relied upon a decision of the ITAT Chennai Bench and another decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case Bench and another decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case Bench and another decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of T. Sundaram Chettiar and Another Vs. CIT, 49 ITR 287. From the aforesaid of T. Sundaram Chettiar and Another Vs. CIT, 49 ITR 287. From the aforesaid of T. Sundaram Chettiar and Another Vs. CIT, 49 ITR 287. From the aforesaid discussions of learned CIT, it is apparent and obvious that the issue whether the discussions of learned CIT, it is apparent and obvious that the issue whether the discussions of learned CIT, it is apparent and obvious that the issue whether the advance can be treated as deemed d advance can be treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) at the hands of assessee is a ividend u/s 2(22)(e) at the hands of assessee is a debatable issue on which more than one view are possible. Therefore, when the view debatable issue on which more than one view are possible. Therefore, when the view debatable issue on which more than one view are possible. Therefore, when the view taken by Addl. CIT and Assessing Officer can be considered as one of the possible taken by Addl. CIT and Assessing Officer can be considered as one of the possible taken by Addl. CIT and Assessing Officer can be considered as one of the possible views, assessment order cannot be treate views, assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous, even though there may be d as erroneous, even though there may be some prejudice caused to revenue. One more aspect, which needs to be taken note of some prejudice caused to revenue. One more aspect, which needs to be taken note of some prejudice caused to revenue. One more aspect, which needs to be taken note of is learned CIT while revising assessment order and directing Assessing Officer to treat is learned CIT while revising assessment order and directing Assessing Officer to treat is learned CIT while revising assessment order and directing Assessing Officer to treat the amount of Rs. 4,27,36,648 as deemed divi the amount of Rs. 4,27,36,648 as deemed dividend at the hands of assessee has totally dend at the hands of assessee has totally failed to examine whether M/s VCPL at the time of alleged payment was having failed to examine whether M/s VCPL at the time of alleged payment was having failed to examine whether M/s VCPL at the time of alleged payment was having accumulated profits or not. When learned CIT is aware of the fact that Addl. CIT accumulated profits or not. When learned CIT is aware of the fact that Addl. CIT accumulated profits or not. When learned CIT is aware of the fact that Addl. CIT while disapproving the addition proposed to be made u/s while disapproving the addition proposed to be made u/s 2(22)(e) has observed that 2(22)(e) has observed that M/s VCPL did not have accumulated profits, which is one of the conditions for M/s VCPL did not have accumulated profits, which is one of the conditions for M/s VCPL did not have accumulated profits, which is one of the conditions for invoking section 2(22)(e) section 2(22)(e), it was incumbent upon him to examine that aspect before , it was incumbent upon him to examine that aspect before directing for addition of Rs. 4,27,36,648 u/s 2(22)(e). ITAT Lucknow Bench in case of tion of Rs. 4,27,36,648 u/s 2(22)(e). ITAT Lucknow Bench in case of tion of Rs. 4,27,36,648 u/s 2(22)(e). ITAT Lucknow Bench in case of Mehtab Alam Vs. ACIT, to 294/LKW/14 dated 18/11/2014 while setting Mehtab Alam Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 288 to 294/LKW/14 dated 18/11/2014 while setting Mehtab Alam Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 288 to 294/LKW/14 dated 18/11/2014 while setting aside the order passed u/s 263 of the Act, amongst other decisions also took note of a aside the order passed u/s 263 of the Act, amongst other decisions also took note of a aside the order passed u/s 263 of the Act, amongst other decisions also took note of a decision of the Hon'ble Allabahad High Court in case of CIT Vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar e Allabahad High Court in case of CIT Vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar e Allabahad High Court in case of CIT Vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar wherein it was held that when Ass wherein it was held that when Assessing Officer Ch. Krishna Murthy was fully alive hy was fully alive about the facts of the case and the order passed by him was approved by Addl. CIT, about the facts of the case and the order passed by him was approved by Addl. CIT, about the facts of the case and the order passed by him was approved by Addl. CIT, then, ld. CIT cannot be justifie then, ld. CIT cannot be justified in interfering in the approval given by Addl. CIT for d in interfering in the approval given by Addl. CIT for framing assessment order and there will be no case for setting aside the assessment framing assessment order and there will be no case for setting aside the assessment framing assessment order and there will be no case for setting aside the assessment order. Therefore, considered in the aforesaid perspective when it is a fact on record order. Therefore, considered in the aforesaid perspective when it is a fact on record order. Therefore, considered in the aforesaid perspective when it is a fact on record that both the addl. CIT while that both the addl. CIT while granting approval u/s 153D as well as Assessing Officer granting approval u/s 153D as well as Assessing Officer in course of assessment proceeding have examined the issue of deemed dividend u/s in course of assessment proceeding have examined the issue of deemed dividend u/s in course of assessment proceeding have examined the issue of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act at the hands of assessee in relation to the advance shown in his 2(22)(e) of the Act at the hands of assessee in relation to the advance shown in his 2(22)(e) of the Act at the hands of assessee in relation to the advance shown in his name in the books of M/s VCPL and name in the books of M/s VCPL and the view taken by Assessing Officer as well as the view taken by Assessing Officer as well as addl. CIT can be considered as one of the possible views, assessment order cannot be addl. CIT can be considered as one of the possible views, assessment order cannot be addl. CIT can be considered as one of the possible views, assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous. More so, when assessment order has been passed in terms with treated as erroneous. More so, when assessment order has been passed in terms with treated as erroneous. More so, when assessment order has been passed in terms with section 153D of the Act and ld. CIT has not revised the directions of addl. CIT. In these of the Act and ld. CIT has not revised the directions of addl. CIT. In these of the Act and ld. CIT has not revised the directions of addl. CIT. In these circumstances, as one of the conditions of circumstances, as one of the conditions of section 263 is not satisfied, the impugned is not satisfied, the impugned order passed u/s 263 is not valid. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of 263 is not valid. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of 263 is not valid. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of learned CIT and restored the assessment order passed. learned CIT and restored the assessment order passed.

As we have held the revision order to be invalid for the reasons stated above, the 25. As we have held the revision order to be invalid for the reasons stated above, the 25. As we have held the revision order to be invalid for the reasons stated above, the other issues raised by assessee in the grounds o other issues raised by assessee in the grounds of appeal relating to the absence of f appeal relating to the absence of Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. incriminating material, etc. are not required to be gone into. For the very same incriminating material, etc. are not required to be gone into. For the very same incriminating material, etc. are not required to be gone into. For the very same reason, additional ground is also reason, additional ground is also not required to be adjudicated.”

The Mumbai ‘E’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of The Mumbai ‘E’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Surendra L. Shri Surendra L. Hiranandani vs. Pr. CIT in 3227, 3227, 3228, 3229, 3230, 3231 & Hiranandani vs. Pr. CIT in ITA Nos. 3226, 3227, 3227, 3228, 3229, 3230, 3231 & Hiranandani vs. Pr. CIT in ITA Nos. 3226, 3227, 3227, 3228, 3229, 3230, 3231 & 3232/M/2017, order dt. 14/02/2018, order dt. 14/02/2018, 3232/M/2017, order dt. 14/02/2018, order dt. 14/02/2018, held as under: held as under:-

“25. We find that assessment order u/s.143 r.w.s.153 “25. We find that assessment order u/s.143 r.w.s.153A of the Act was passed after was passed after getting approval of ACIT as per provisions of getting approval of ACIT as per provisions of section 153D of the Act. We find that the of the Act. We find that the order u/s.143A r.w.s. 153 of the Act cannot revise without revising the approval of order u/s.143A r.w.s. 153 of the Act cannot revise without revising the approval of order u/s.143A r.w.s. 153 of the Act cannot revise without revising the approval of ACIT. We find that as per the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of IT. We find that as per the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of IT. We find that as per the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar in I.T. Appeal No.192 of 2000 wherein it is held that the CIT Vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar in I.T. Appeal No.192 of 2000 wherein it is held that the CIT Vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar in I.T. Appeal No.192 of 2000 wherein it is held that the assessment order approved by the 23 assessment order approved by the 23 ITA No3226-3232.M.17 A.Y.2008- -09 to 2014-15 ACIT u/s.153D of the Act cannot subject to revision u/s.263 of the Act. 53D of the Act cannot subject to revision u/s.263 of the Act. 53D of the Act cannot subject to revision u/s.263 of the Act. The learned DR could not file any evidence to show that such permission was revised by ACIT in DR could not file any evidence to show that such permission was revised by ACIT in DR could not file any evidence to show that such permission was revised by ACIT in present case, therefore, CIT cannot revise the order passed by AO u/s.153 of the Act. present case, therefore, CIT cannot revise the order passed by AO u/s.153 of the Act. present case, therefore, CIT cannot revise the order passed by AO u/s.153 of the Act. As per section 153A of the Act. of the Act.

Tribunal in case of Trinity Infra ventures 26. Tribunal in case of Trinity Infra ventures Ltd v. DCIT CC 2(1) in ITA Nos. 584 2(1) in ITA Nos. 584- 589/Hyd/2015 dated 04.12.2015 wherein, the Hon'b 589/Hyd/2015 dated 04.12.2015 wherein, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that the le Tribunal has held that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153 assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act cannot be revised without cannot be revised without revising the approval of Addl. CIT: revising the approval of Addl. CIT: 5.4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further sub 5.4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessment under mitted that the assessment under section 143(3) read with read with section 153C was passed after getting approval of Addl. CIT was passed after getting approval of Addl. CIT under section 153D section 153D of the I.T. Act and therefore such an assessment cannot be of the I.T. Act and therefore such an assessment cannot be revised without revising the directions of the Addl. CIT under revised without revising the directions of the Addl. CIT under section 153D section 153D of the I.T. Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, has relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, has relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, has relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Ch. Krishna Murthy vs. ACIT, C.C. 3, Hyderabad in ITA No. 766/Hyd/2012 the case of Ch. Krishna Murthy vs. ACIT, C.C. 3, Hyderabad in ITA No. 766/Hyd/2012 the case of Ch. Krishna Murthy vs. ACIT, C.C. 3, Hyderabad in ITA No. 766/Hyd/2012 dated 13.02.2015 and also the decision of Lucknow Bench of ITAT in the case of dated 13.02.2015 and also the decision of Lucknow Bench of ITAT in the case of dated 13.02.2015 and also the decision of Lucknow Bench of ITAT in the case of MehtabAlam 288/Luck/2014 dated 18.11.2014 in support of this contention. He has ehtabAlam 288/Luck/2014 dated 18.11.2014 in support of this contention. He has ehtabAlam 288/Luck/2014 dated 18.11.2014 in support of this contention. He has also placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of also placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of also placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar CIT vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar in I.T. Appeal No. 192 of 2000 wherein it has been held that l No. 192 of 2000 wherein it has been held that the assessment order approved by the Addl. CIT under the assessment order approved by the Addl. CIT under section 153D section 153D, cannot be subjected to revision under subjected to revision under section 263 of the I.T. Act. In view of the above decision of the I.T. Act. In view of the above decision also, we hold that the revision order under also, we hold that the revision order under section 263 of the I.T. Act is not of the I.T. Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the grounds of the assessee". sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the grounds of the assessee".

Hon'ble Tribunal in case of 27. Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Dhariwal Industries Ltd v. CIT in ITA Nos. 1108 in ITA Nos. 1108- 1113/Pn/2014 dated 23.12.2016 wherein, the Hon'ble Tribunal held as under: 1113/Pn/2014 dated 23.12.2016 wherein, the Hon'ble Tribunal held as under: 1113/Pn/2014 dated 23.12.2016 wherein, the Hon'ble Tribunal held as under: 9. Referring to the decision of the Hyderabad Be 9. Referring to the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of nch of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Trinity Infra Ventures Ltd. Vs. DCIT vide ITA Nos. 584 to 589/H/2015 order M/s. Trinity Infra Ventures Ltd. Vs. DCIT vide ITA Nos. 584 to 589/H/2015 order M/s. Trinity Infra Ventures Ltd. Vs. DCIT vide ITA Nos. 584 to 589/H/2015 order dated 04-12- 2015 for A.Yrs. 2005 2015 for A.Yrs. 2005- 06 to 2010-11 he submitted that the Tribunal in 11 he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision, following various decisions including t the said decision, following various decisions including the decision of Hon'ble he decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar vide Income Tax Appeal Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar vide Income Tax Appeal Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar vide Income Tax Appeal No.192/2000 order dated 06 No.192/2000 order dated 06-08-2012, has held that assessment order approved by 2012, has held that assessment order approved by the Addl.CIT u/s.153D cannot be subjected to revise u/s.263 of the the Addl.CIT u/s.153D cannot be subjected to revise u/s.263 of the I.T. Act I.T. Act.

We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the 12. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the 12. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the Ld.CIT and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. orders of the AO and the Ld.CIT and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. orders of the AO and the Ld.CIT and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee.

We find merit in the above submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find 14. We find merit in the above submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find 14. We find merit in the above submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of MehtabAlam Vs. ACIT vide ITA the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of MehtabAlam Vs. ACIT vide ITA the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of MehtabAlam Vs. ACIT vide to 294/Lkw/2014 order dated 18 Nos.288 to 294/Lkw/2014 order dated 18-11-2014 while deciding an identical issue 2014 while deciding an identical issue has observed as under. ed as under. 14.1 We find the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CH. Krishna Murthy 14.1 We find the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CH. Krishna Murthy 14.1 We find the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CH. Krishna Murthy Vs. ACIT vide ITA No.766/Hyd/2012 order dated 13 Vs. ACIT vide ITA No.766/Hyd/2012 order dated 13-02-2015 following the decision 2015 following the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of MehtabAlam (Supra) held tha of the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of MehtabAlam (Supra) held tha of the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of MehtabAlam (Supra) held that CIT is not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 when the order has been passed CIT is not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 when the order has been passed CIT is not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 when the order has been passed in terms of section 153D section 153D of the Act. 14.2 We find the Hyderabad Bench of the of the Act. 14.2 We find the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Trinity Infr Tribunal in the case of M/s. Trinity Infra Ventures Ltd. (Supra) had an occasion to a Ventures Ltd. (Supra) had an occasion to decide an identical issue and it held that the assessment order approved by the decide an identical issue and it held that the assessment order approved by the decide an identical issue and it held that the assessment order approved by the Addl.CIT u/s.153D cannot be subject to revision u/s.263 of the Addl.CIT u/s.153D cannot be subject to revision u/s.263 of the I.T. Act I.T. Act. The relevant observation of the Tribunal at Para 5.4 of the order reads as under. observation of the Tribunal at Para 5.4 of the order reads as under.

Since in the instant case also the Assessing Officer has passed the order after 28. Since in the instant case also the Assessing Officer has passed the order after 28. Since in the instant case also the Assessing Officer has passed the order after obtaining necessary approval from Addl.CIT u/s.153D of the I.T. Act, therefore, obtaining necessary approval from Addl.CIT u/s.153D of the I.T. Act, therefore, obtaining necessary approval from Addl.CIT u/s.153D of the I.T. Act, therefore, respectfully following the above wing the above-mentioned decisions of the Coordinate Benches of mentioned decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal we are of the considered opinion that the CIT has no power to revise the the Tribunal we are of the considered opinion that the CIT has no power to revise the the Tribunal we are of the considered opinion that the CIT has no power to revise the order u/s.263 of the I.T. Act I.T. Act in the instant case since the same has been passed with the same has been passed with the approval of the Addl.CIT u/s.153D of the I.T. Act. We respectfully following the the approval of the Addl.CIT u/s.153D of the I.T. Act. We respectfully following the the approval of the Addl.CIT u/s.153D of the I.T. Act. We respectfully following the decision of ACIT Vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar, ITA 192 of 2000. We find that in the instant Dr. Ashok Kumar, ITA 192 of 2000. We find that in the instant Dr. Ashok Kumar, ITA 192 of 2000. We find that in the instant case the original approval was granted by Addl. CIT and t case the original approval was granted by Addl. CIT and this assessment order is his assessment order is cannot be revise without approval of Add. CIT. (III) CIT has not conducted any cannot be revise without approval of Add. CIT. (III) CIT has not conducted any cannot be revise without approval of Add. CIT. (III) CIT has not conducted any enquiry before directing the Assessing Offi enquiry before directing the Assessing Officer to decide the issues afresh.” cer to decide the issues afresh.”

The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dhariwal Industries Limited Dhariwal Industries Limited vs. CIT, Central, Pune 2017 (1) TMI 260 CIT, Central, Pune 2017 (1) TMI 260 – ITAT Pune, held as under:-

We have also examined the judgment of the Ho 32. We have also examined the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Dr. Ashok Kumar (supra) on an issue whether the assessment order was case of CIT v. Dr. Ashok Kumar (supra) on an issue whether the assessment order was case of CIT v. Dr. Ashok Kumar (supra) on an issue whether the assessment order was passed with the approval of the Addl. CIT and their Lordships have held that the passed with the approval of the Addl. CIT and their Lordships have held that the passed with the approval of the Addl. CIT and their Lordships have held that the Assessing Officer was fully alive about the fads of the case and that is why h Assessing Officer was fully alive about the fads of the case and that is why h Assessing Officer was fully alive about the fads of the case and that is why he got necessary approval of the Addl. CIT before completing the assessment orders for all the necessary approval of the Addl. CIT before completing the assessment orders for all the necessary approval of the Addl. CIT before completing the assessment orders for all the assessment years and once that is not disputed by the Revenue, then the Id. assessment years and once that is not disputed by the Revenue, then the Id. assessment years and once that is not disputed by the Revenue, then the Id. Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-tax would not be justified in interfering in the approval tax would not be justified in interfering in the approval Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. according by the Addl. CIT for framing the as he Addl. CIT for framing the assessment order and than there was no case sessment order and than there was no case for setting aside the assessment order for the assessment years in question. for setting aside the assessment order for the assessment years in question. for setting aside the assessment order for the assessment years in question.” 14.1 We find the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CH. Krishna Murthy v. ACIT vide 14.1 We find the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CH. Krishna Murthy v. ACIT vide 14.1 We find the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CH. Krishna Murthy v. ACIT vide order dated 13 ITA No. 766/Hyd/2012 order dated 13-02-2015 following the decision of the Lucknow Bench of 2015 following the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mehtab Alam (Supra) held that CIT(A) is not justified in assuming the Tribunal in the case of Mehtab Alam (Supra) held that CIT(A) is not justified in assuming the Tribunal in the case of Mehtab Alam (Supra) held that CIT(A) is not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 when the order has been passed in terms of sectio jurisdiction u/s. 263 when the order has been passed in terms of section 153D of the Act. n 153D of the Act. 14.2 We find the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Trinity Infra Ventures Ltd. 14.2 We find the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Trinity Infra Ventures Ltd. 14.2 We find the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Trinity Infra Ventures Ltd. (Supra) had an occasion to decide an identical issue and it held that the assessment order (Supra) had an occasion to decide an identical issue and it held that the assessment order (Supra) had an occasion to decide an identical issue and it held that the assessment order approved by the Addl. CIT u/s. 153D cannot be subject approved by the Addl. CIT u/s. 153D cannot be subject to revision u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act. The to revision u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act. The relevant observation of the Tribunal at Para 5.4 of the order reads as under: relevant observation of the Tribunal at Para 5.4 of the order reads as under: 5.4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessment under 5.4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessment under 5.4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153C was passed section 143(3) read with section 153C was passed after getting approval of Addl. CIT after getting approval of Addl. CIT under section 153D of the I.T. Act and therefore such an assessment cannot be revised under section 153D of the I.T. Act and therefore such an assessment cannot be revised under section 153D of the I.T. Act and therefore such an assessment cannot be revised without revising the directions of the Addl. CIT under section 153D of the I.T. Act. The Ld. without revising the directions of the Addl. CIT under section 153D of the I.T. Act. The Ld. without revising the directions of the Addl. CIT under section 153D of the I.T. Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, has relied upo Counsel for the assessee, has relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Ch. n the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Ch. Krishna Murthy v. ACIT, C.C. 3, Hyderabad in ITA. No 766/Hyd/2012 dated 13.02.2015 Krishna Murthy v. ACIT, C.C. 3, Hyderabad in ITA. No 766/Hyd/2012 dated 13.02.2015 Krishna Murthy v. ACIT, C.C. 3, Hyderabad in ITA. No 766/Hyd/2012 dated 13.02.2015 and also the decision of Lucknow Bench of ITAT in the case of Mehtab Alam and also the decision of Lucknow Bench of ITAT in the case of Mehtab Alam and also the decision of Lucknow Bench of ITAT in the case of Mehtab Alam 288/Luck/2014 dated 18.11.2014 in support of th 288/Luck/2014 dated 18.11.2014 in support of this contention. He has also placed is contention. He has also placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Dr. reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Dr. reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Dr. Ashok Kumar in I.T. Appeal No. 192 of 2000 wherein it has been he Ashok Kumar in I.T. Appeal No. 192 of 2000 wherein it has been held that the assessment ld that the assessment order approved by the Addl. CIT under section 153 proved by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, cannot be subjected to revision D, cannot be subjected to revision under section 263 of the I.T. Act. In view of the above decision also, we hold that the under section 263 of the I.T. Act. In view of the above decision also, we hold that the under section 263 of the I.T. Act. In view of the above decision also, we hold that the revision order under section 263 of the I.T. Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, we all revision order under section 263 of the I.T. Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, we all revision order under section 263 of the I.T. Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the grounds of the assessee.” the grounds of the assessee.”

Since in the instant case also the Assessing Officer has passed the order after the instant case also the Assessing Officer has passed the order after the instant case also the Assessing Officer has passed the order after obtaining necessary approval from Addl. CIT u/s. 153D of the I.T. Act, therefore, obtaining necessary approval from Addl. CIT u/s. 153D of the I.T. Act, therefore, obtaining necessary approval from Addl. CIT u/s. 153D of the I.T. Act, therefore, respectfully following the above respectfully following the above-mentioned decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the mentioned decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal we are of the considered opinion that the CIT has no power to revise the order of the considered opinion that the CIT has no power to revise the order of the considered opinion that the CIT has no power to revise the order u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act in the instant case since the same has been passed with the u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act in the instant case since the same has been passed with the u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act in the instant case since the same has been passed with the approval of the Addl. CIT u/s. 153D of the I.T. Act.” approval of the Addl. CIT u/s. 153D of the I.T. Act.

Respectfully following the propositions o Respectfully following the propositions of law laid down in all these judgments and all these judgments and applying the same to the facts of the case, we have no other alternative but to hold that applying the same to the facts of the case, we have no other alternative but to hold that applying the same to the facts of the case, we have no other alternative but to hold that the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT is bad in law for the reason the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT is bad in law for the reason the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT is bad in law for the reason that the order of statutory ap that the order of statutory approval passed u/s 153D of the Act, based on which the order proval passed u/s 153D of the Act, based on which the order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dt. 30/03/2016, was passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dt. 30/03/2016, was passed, was not revised and was not revised and is a valid and legal order.

Even otherwise, in this case, we find that the ld. Pr. CIT, without making any Even otherwise, in this case, we find that the ld. Pr. CIT, without making any Even otherwise, in this case, we find that the ld. Pr. CIT, without making any enquiries on his own, in a mechanical manner on his own, in a mechanical manner has set aside the matter to the file of the has set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Such general restoration of the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Such general restoration of the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Such general restoration of the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, without the ld. Pr. CIT making any enquiry of the Assessing Officer, without the ld. Pr. CIT making any enquiry by himself by himself or forming any opinion on the issue, is not permitted in law. This is not a case where there is no , is not permitted in law. This is not a case where there is no , is not permitted in law. This is not a case where there is no enquiry. As per the ld. Pr. CIT, this i enquiry. As per the ld. Pr. CIT, this is a case of inadequate enquiry. T s a case of inadequate enquiry. The legal position on Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. this issue has been settled by various Courts of law. The relevant case this issue has been settled by various Courts of law. The relevant case- -law are provided as under:-

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.