Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Sec. 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961— Revision— the assessee was an individual filed his return of income for the AY 2002-03 on 09/08/2002 declaring an income which includes salary income and income from other sources. Initially, the assessment was completed U/s. 143(3) of the Act on 04/03/3005 and thereafter the case was reopened U/s. 147 and the assessment order U/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 was passed on 21/07/2010 determining the taxable income much higher. While computing the total taxable income the AO made additions. CIT treated the assessment order passed by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, the CIT issued show cause notice to the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act mentioning his observations. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee objected for invoking of the provisions of section 263 Act since on the earlier occasion the assessment was completed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act wherein all these aspects were considered by the AO. CIT set-aside the assessment order passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and directed the Ld. AO to thoroughly examine the issue of ADS. The assessee filed appeal before tribunal.
Tribunal do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the CIT. Hence, the appeal of the assessee was devoid of merits.
As the order passed by the CWT U/s. 25 of the Wealth Tax Act for setting aside the order of the WTO and directing him to frame fresh assessment order after verifying the issues pointed out in the order passed U/s. 25 of the Act. It was find that the order of the CWT passed U/s. 25 of the Act dated 26/3/2012 does not survive because the revised wealth tax assessment order passed by the WTO U/s. 16(3) r.w.s 17 of the Act, dated 23/12/2009 was quashed by the Tribunal in WTA No. 02/H/2012 for the AY 2002-03 in the assessee’s case vide order dated 08/1/2014. Therefore, tribunal quash the order passed by the CWT U/s. 25 of the Act dated 26/3/2012 for the relevant AY 2002-03. Therefore, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 746/Hyd/2012 was dismissed and the appeal in WTA No.01/Hyd/2012 was allowed. --- B. RAMALINGA RAJU vs. Deputy CIT. 23 ITCD Online 55 (HYD)