{"id":27850,"date":"2022-06-26T22:49:36","date_gmt":"2022-06-26T17:19:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/concord-infra-projects-p-ltd-v-pcit-214-ttj-892-208-dtr-1-kol-trib\/"},"modified":"2022-06-26T22:49:36","modified_gmt":"2022-06-26T17:19:36","slug":"concord-infra-projects-p-ltd-v-pcit-214-ttj-892-208-dtr-1-kol-trib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/concord-infra-projects-p-ltd-v-pcit-214-ttj-892-208-dtr-1-kol-trib\/","title":{"rendered":"Concord Infra Projects (P) Ltd. v. PCIT 214 TTJ 892 \/ 208 DTR 1 (Kol.)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Assessment was reopened and the assessee has not challenged the said order. The revision order was passed by the PCIT. On appeal before\u00a0 the Tribunal, the assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings as bad in law and without jurisdiction.\u00a0 Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that jurisdictional issue of reassessment can be challenged in appeal against revision proceedings. \u00a0Tribunal held that Assessing Officer\u2019s belief of escapement of income was based on wrong assumption of facts and therefore the reassessment order was nullity and consequently \u00a0the revision order was quashed. Referred\u00a0 Westlife Development Ltd. v. PCIT (ITA No.688\/Mum\/ 2016 dt 24-6-2016, Krishna Kumar Saraf v. CIT (ITA No. 4562\/ Del\/ 2011 dt.24-9-2015), Classic Flour &amp; Food Processing (P) Ltd v. CIT (ITA Nos. 764 to 766 \/Kol\/2014 dt 5-4-2017). (AY. 2010-11)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Jurisdictional issue of reassessment can be challenged in an appeal against revision proceedings-Appeal-Appellate Tribunal-Power-Revision order was quashed. [S. 143(3), 147, 253, 254(1)] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-7fc","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27850","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27850"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27850\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27851,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27850\/revisions\/27851"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}