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
…ausible view arrived at by an A.O cannot be dislodged by the revisional authority in exercise of powers vested with him under Sec. 263 of the Act, the ld. A.R had relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 5. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (for short „D.R‟) relied on the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the netting off the interest received on refund against the interest paid u/ss. 234B and 234C was ITA No.2847/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 6 Tata Steel ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-2…
