Gulshan Kumar v. Pr. CIT - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Pr CIT v Reeta Lakhmani & Ors 2022 TaxPub(DT) 7924 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT & Ors. 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2810 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED UOI & Ors. v. Hari Singh & Ors. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4969 (SC)
REFERRED Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. ITO 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2320 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0837 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0088 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Ghanshyam (Huf) 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1897 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 2008 TaxPub(DT) 0132 (Raj-HC)
REFERRED V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P) Ltd. Etc. v. CIT Etc. 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1336 (SC)
REFERRED Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1227 (SC)
REFERRED Smt. Rama Bai Etc. Etc. v. CIT 1990 TaxPub(DT) 0685 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 791 (Del-Trib) IN THE ITAT DELHI N.K. Billaiya, A.M. & Astha Chandra, J.M. Gulshan Kumar v. Pr. CIT ITA No. 1676/Del/2023 13 February, 2024 Assessee by: Lalit Mohan, CA Department by: T. James Singson, CIT, DR ORDER *Astha Chandra, J.M.* The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21-3-2023 of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak (PCIT) passed by him under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1 That order dated 21-3-2023 under section 203 of the Act by the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak has been made without satisfying the statutory preconditions contained in the Act and is therefore without jurisdiction and thus, deserves to be quashed as such. 2 That initiation of proceedings under section 263 of the Act on the basis of proposal of learned Assessing Officer is void-ab-initio therefore both initiation and consequent order under section 263 of the Act without jurisdiction and thus, deserves to be quashed as such. 3 That initiation of proceedings under section263 of the Act on the basis of unsigned show cause notice by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak is void-ab- initio therefore both initiation and consequent order under section 263 of the Act without jurisdiction and thus, deserves to be quashed as such. 4 That the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate that once the learned Assessing Officer on examination of the facts on record and after making all possible enquiries had accepted claim of the appellant then such an order of assessment could not be regarded as erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely because the learned Commissioner of Income Tax had a different opinion and that too, without having established in any manner that, view adopted by the learned Assessing Officer was an impossible or unsustainable view. 5. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate that action under section 263 of the Act is otherwise too inapplicable on the factual matrix of the facts of the instant case since it is not a case of 'lack of enquiry' or 'lack of investigation' and therefore the invocation us 263 of the Act is not in accordance with law. 6. That further more the learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax has proceeded to set aside the order on mere speculation, generalized observations, theoretical allegations and assertions, without there being any supporting evidence and is therefore not in accordance with law. 7. That finding of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax that 'the Assessing Officer had passed the order dated 3-12-2020 in a very causal manner without due diligence and without conducting proper enquiries and verification which should have been made with respect of amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2015 and binding decision of Jurisdictional Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court on the taxability of interest on enhanced compensation' is factually incorrect, legally misconceived, contrary to facts on record and wholly untenable. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 791 (Del-Trib)

IN THE ITAT DELHI

N.K. Billaiya, A.M. & Astha Chandra, J.M.

Gulshan Kumar v. Pr. CIT

ITA No. 1676/Del/2023

13 February, 2024

Assessee by: Lalit Mohan, CA

Department by: T. James Singson, CIT, DR

ORDER

Astha Chandra, J.M.

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21-3-2023 of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak (PCIT) passed by him under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1 That order dated 21-3-2023 under section 203 of the Act by the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak has been made without satisfying the statutory preconditions contained in the Act and is therefore without jurisdiction and thus, deserves to be quashed as such.

2 That initiation of proceedings under section 263 of the Act on the basis of proposal of learned Assessing Officer is void-ab-initio therefore both initiation and consequent order under section 263 of the Act without jurisdiction and thus, deserves to be quashed as such.

3 That initiation of proceedings under section263 of the Act on the basis of unsigned show cause notice by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak is void-ab- initio therefore both initiation and consequent order under section 263 of the Act without jurisdiction and thus, deserves to be quashed as such.

4 That the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate that once the learned Assessing Officer on examination of the facts on record and after making all possible enquiries had accepted claim of the appellant then such an order of assessment could not be regarded as erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely because the learned Commissioner of Income Tax had a different opinion and that too, without having established in any manner that, view adopted by the learned Assessing Officer was an impossible or unsustainable view.

5. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate that action under section 263 of the Act is otherwise too inapplicable on the factual matrix of the facts of the instant case since it is not a case of 'lack of enquiry' or 'lack of investigation' and therefore the invocation us 263 of the Act is not in accordance with law.

6. That further more the learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax has proceeded to set aside the order on mere speculation, generalized observations, theoretical allegations and assertions, without there being any supporting evidence and is therefore not in accordance with law.

7. That finding of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax that 'the Assessing Officer had passed the order dated 3-12-2020 in a very causal manner without due diligence and without conducting proper enquiries and verification which should have been made with respect of amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2015 and binding decision of Jurisdictional Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court on the taxability of interest on enhanced compensation' is factually incorrect, legally misconceived, contrary to facts on record and wholly untenable.