Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-2 (3)(1), Mumbai
ITA 2847/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice & Shri Ravish Soodtata Steel Limited Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Bombay House, Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, 24, Homi Mody Street, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Vs. Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Mumbai 400 020. Pan – Aaact2803M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.R Respondent By: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.01.2020 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai (For Short „Pr.Cit‟) Under Sec. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟) Dated 28.03.2019 For A.Y 2012-13. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:- Sr. No. Ground (S) Amount (S) Of Disallowance 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax [“Ld. Pcit”] Erred In Rs.41,70,51,091 Revising, Purportedly Under Sec.263, The Assessment Order “U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The I.T. Act, 1961”, Dated 27Th February, 2017, Of The (Tax Effect Learned Assessing Officer [“Ld. A.O”]. Rs.13,53,12,226/-) Ground (S) On Jurisdiction Amount (S) Of Disallowance 2. Without Prejudice To The Generality Of The Foregoing, The Ld. Pcit‟S Rs.41,70,51,091 Revisional Order Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal For The Following Reasons: (Tax Effect (I) The Initiation Of The Proceedings Under Sec.263 Was Without Rs.13,53,12,226/-) Jurisdiction, Inasmuch As That Provision, In Terms, Authorizes The Authorities Specified Therein To Revise Only An “…….. Order Passed…………By The Assessing Officer……….” Not An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld.
For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263
…event, since a regular assessment had been made under Section 143(3) and that, too, in pursuance of the directions of the DRP, a presumption arises that the assessment order has been made upon application of mind {CIT Vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 547 (Del)}. Accordingly, the ld. A.O having, after application of mind, taken one of two views available to him, his assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous and much less prejudicial to the interests of the revenue within the meaning of Sec.263, and the Commissioner‟s purported revision of that order under Sec.263 is without jurisdiction. (vi…
