Lodhika Seva Sahkari Mandali v. Pr. CIT

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED TIFS Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Pr. CIT 2023 TaxPub(DT) 5237 (Rkt-Trib)
REFERRED Navavaghniya Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. v. DCIT/ACIT 2023 TaxPub(DT) 1891 (Rkt-Trib)
REFERRED Aliudepur Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. v. ADIT 2023 TaxPub(DT) 1327 (Rkt-Trib)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1748 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED State Bank of India (SBI) v. Commissioner of Income-tax 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3564 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED The Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1466 (SC)
REFERRED The Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1466 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1751 (Rkt-Trib) IN THE ITAT RAJKOT BENCH WASEEM AHMED, A.M. & T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, J.M. Lodhika Seva Sahkari Mandali v. Pr. CIT ITA No. 184/Rjt/2022 5 April, 2024 Assessee by: Written Submission Revenue by: Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR ORDER *T.R. Senthil Kumar, J.M.* This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the Revision order dated 1-2-2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) relating to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Assessee reads as under: 1. The learned Commissioner has erred in law and facts in passing order under section 263. The order needs cancellation. 2. The learned Commissioner has erred in law and facts in passing order under section 263 although the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The order needs cancellation. 3. The learned Commissioner has erred in law and facts in not providing adequate and reasonable opportunity to the appellant. The order needs cancellation. 4. The learned Commissioner has erred in law and facts in not considering the aspect that all relevant documents and information with full details were produced before the learned assessing officer and therefore no action under section 263 can be levied legally. The order needs cancellation. 5. The learned Commissioner has erred in law and facts in not considering the aspect that all relevant documents and information with full details were also submitted before the learned assessing officer and therefore no action under section 263 can be levied legally. The order needs cancellation. 6. The learned Commissioner has erred in law and facts in not considering that as per statutory position fully settled under the law, there was no scope to consider action under section 263. The order needs cancellation. 7. Taking into consideration the legal, statutory and factual aspect, no action under section 263 ought to have been taken. The same needs cancellation. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1751 (Rkt-Trib)

IN THE ITAT RAJKOT BENCH

WASEEM AHMED, A.M. & T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, J.M.

Lodhika Seva Sahkari Mandali v. Pr. CIT

ITA No. 184/Rjt/2022

5 April, 2024

Assessee by: Written Submission

Revenue by: Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR

ORDER

T.R. Senthil Kumar, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the Revision order dated 1-2-2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) relating to the assessment year 2017-18.

2. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Assessee reads as under:

1. The learned Commissioner has erred in law and facts in passing order under section 263. The order needs cancellation.

2. The learned Commissioner has erred in law and facts in passing order under section 263 although the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The order needs cancellation.

3. The learned Commissioner has erred in law and facts in not providing adequate and reasonable opportunity to the appellant. The order needs cancellation.

4. The learned Commissioner has erred in law and facts in not considering the aspect that all relevant documents and information with full details were produced before the learned assessing officer and therefore no action under section 263 can be levied legally. The order needs cancellation.

5. The learned Commissioner has erred in law and facts in not considering the aspect that all relevant documents and information with full details were also submitted before the learned assessing officer and therefore no action under section 263 can be levied legally. The order needs cancellation.

6. The learned Commissioner has erred in law and facts in not considering that as per statutory position fully settled under the law, there was no scope to consider action under section 263. The order needs cancellation.

7. Taking into consideration the legal, statutory and factual aspect, no action under section 263 ought to have been taken. The same needs cancellation.