MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED,BURLA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 141/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16
Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.141/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Jagruti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, Dated 21.04.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Notice Issued & Order Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Pr. Cit) Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Issuing The Notice & Passing The Order U/S.263 Of The Act, More So When The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 3. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Further Erred In Law & In Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Issuing The Notice & Passing The Order U/S.263 Of The Act, As The Subject Matter Of Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act Were Duly Considered By The Ld. Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & The Assessment Order Was Passed After Making All The Enquiries & Verification & With Due Application Of Mind.
For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263
section 35D. In any case, there is nothing on record to establish, or even suggest, that expenses incurred on removal of overburden at the surface level, which were capital expenditure in nature, have been claimed as revenue deduction on the strength of coal mining in another piece of land within that coal mine.
41. In view of these discussions
