Case Law Details
It was the submission by the ld. AR that the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the IT Act on 23.01.2012 had not mentioned which order was erroneous nor had he mentioned the error in the assessment order. It was the submission that the show cause notice did not show as to how and what was the issue in which order the said issue arose which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was the submission that it was only when the assessee appeared before ld. CIT that he was told it was the assessment order dated 10.09.2009 u/s 143(3) of the IT Act which was considered as erroneous in so far as the AO had followed the judicial discipline in not making additions in respect of the rebate claimed by assessee u/s 88E of the IT Act which the ld. CIT was of the view that it was subjudiced in so far as the order of the Tribunal was the subject matter of the appeals before Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. It was the submission that as the show cause notice itself was incomplete and non-specific and the show cause notice was issue and the consequential order passed u/s 263 of the IT Act. In reply the ld. DR vehemently supported the order passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. It was the submission that substantive amount of opportunity was granted to the assessee and the ld. CIT had felt that the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the IT Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which was brought to the attention of the assessee. It was the submission that the order of ld. CIT be upheld.
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
ITA No.353/Kol/2012 – Assessment Year: 2007-08
GPSK Capital Private Limited
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
