ANB SOLUTIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 9, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3945/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 October 2017AY 2012-133 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 requested to withdraw the appeal, and the Departmental Representative had no objection. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal application.

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 directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine employee salary and bonus expenditure, alleging the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's order under section 263 was justified, and if the AO had applied their mind to the expenditure. The primary issue became the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.

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 “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT DR)
Hearing: 23/10/2017Pronounced: 23/10/2017

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 29/03/2017 passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Pr. Commissioner by raising the following effective ground of appeal:

1.

“The order dated March 29, 2017, passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, (PCIT), Mumbai under section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘Act) is not in accordance with the law and is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The assessment order 2 Assessment Year: 2012-13 passed by the learned Assessing Officer (AO) is neither erroneous nor prejudiced to the interest of revenue.

2. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned PCIT has erred in directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the expenditure of INR 4,80,66,746/- incurred by the appellant on salary and bonus paid to the employees of the appellant company ignoring the fact that the AO had called for all the details in respect of this expenditure and had applied his mind.

3. The Learned PCIT has erred in holding that independent investigations have not been carried out by the AO ignoring the settled legal position that an assessment cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely because it is felt that some more enquiries and verification could have been made by the AO.

Each of the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred by the Appellant”.

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant/assessee submitted that the assessee has moved an application for permission to withdraw the present appeal, hence the assessee may be allowed to withdraw the same. We have gone through the application dated 09.10.2017 filed by the assessee. The Ld. departmental representative submitted that he has no objection if the assessee is allowed to withdraw the present appeal.

4.

In view of the submissions made by the Ld. counsel in the light of the application of the assessee, we allow the application filed by the assessee and dismiss the present appeal as withdrawn.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 2007 is dismissed as withdrawn.

3 Assessment Year: 2012-13

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →