|
The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2659 (Kol-Trib) : (2020) 208 TTJ 0450 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
Since clause (i) of section 92BA was unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings therefore Pr.CIT ought not to have proceeded under section 263 holding that assessee-company having entered into specified domestic transactions, AO was required to refer the same to TPO after obtaining approval of Pr.CIT as per section 92CA.
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - Invocation of jurisdiction on the ground of non-making of reference to TPO as regards specified domestic transactions -
Pr. CIT invoked jurisidction under section 263 and held that assessee-company having entered into specified domestic transactions, AO was required to refer the same to TPO after obtaining approval of Pr.CIT as per section 92CA but same was not done by AO and, therefore, assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.Held: Clause (i) of section 92BA was omitted with effect from 1-4-2017, and after its omission Pr.CIT passed order under section 263 on 4-3-2019. Since clause (i) of section 92BA was unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings therefore Pr.CIT ought not to have proceeded under section 263 because after omission of clause (i) of section 92BA, had to be treated as if it never existed in the Statute Book. Therefore, oder of Pr.CIT dated 14-3-2019 was void ab initio.
Relied:Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. UOI (2002) 2 SCC 536 : 2000 TaxPub(EX) 1248 (SC) and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Director of Enforcement (1970 AIR 494).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2014-15
IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|