The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0117 (Mum-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH

JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, PRESIDENT & PRAMOD KUMAR, V.P.

Sir Dorabji Tata Trust v. Dy. CIT

I.T.A. No. 3909/Mum/2019

28 December, 2020

In favour of assessee.

Appellant by: P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate, along-with Madhur Agarwal, Sukh Sagar Syal, T.P. Ostwal and Indira Anand

Respondent by: Debashish Chandra, CIT-DR and Brijendra Kumar

ORDER

Per Bench:

1. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged the correctness of the Order, dated 29-3-2019 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) under section 263 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 2014-15.

2. Grievances raised by the appellant, which, being interconnected, will be taken up together, are as follows :--

1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) ['CIT(E)'] erred in initiating proceedings under section 263 of the Act against the Appellant

The Appellant prays that the order passed under section 263 of the Act be set aside.

2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(E) erred in holding that the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)-2(1) ('the learned assessing officer') was erroneous as due verification was not undertaken by the learned assessing officer.

The Appellant prays that it be held that the assessment order passed was not erroneous since adequate verification had been undertaken by the learned assessing officer.

3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, even assuming the assessment order was erroneous, the learned CIT(E) erred in exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act by holding the assessment order was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue without appreciating that there is no tax effect of the proposed directions given by the CIT(E).

The Appellant prays that it be held that assessment order was not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue since there is no tax effect of the proposed directions/verifications.

4. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(E) has erred in directing the learned assessing officer to pass a de novo assessment since the learned assessing officer had allegedly failed to verify the applicability of section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act.

The Appellant prays that the aforesaid directions of the CIT(E) be held as bad in law and accordingly be quashed.

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT