IMPORTANT POINT
The notice under Section 263 does not need to be signed by the Commissioner to be valid, as long as it serves the purpose of providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Amit Sharma, learned standing counsel for the appellant and

2. This appeal relates to the assessment year 2008-09.

Facts:-

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that an assessment order dated Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 23.08.2010 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’) for the assessment year 2008-09 was passed by the assessing officer (ACIT, Circle-56, Kolkata) in respect of the assessee determining total income at ‘Nil’. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-21, Kolkata noticed that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on certain grounds. Accordingly, a notice dated 26.02.2013 was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-21, Kolkata under the signature of Sri Brij Lal Meena, ACIT, Hqrs-21, Kolkata for the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata. The aforesaid notice dated 26.02.2013 is reproduced below:

“Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata – XX – Kolkata No. CIT, Kol-XX1/263/M/S Assam Bengal Carriers/2012-13/4622 Dated 26.02.2013

To

The Principal Officer,

M/S. ASSAM BENGAL CARRIERS

40/8, Ballygunje Circular Road,

Kolkata- 700 019.

Sir,

Sub: Show Cause Notice u/s.263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the case of M/s. Assam Bengal Carriers PAN: AAFFA0462R against the order u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2008-09- Matter reg.

In this case, the order YU/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed by A.C.I.T. Circle-56, Kolkata for A.Y. 2008-09 on 23-08-2010, determining the total income at Rs.NIL. Thereafter, it is noticed that:

i) Dividend income for Rs.5,018/- was claimed to be exempted by the assessee. Relatable expenditure earning such dividend income was calculated to Rs.1,000/-and only Rs.4,018/- was claimed as exempted on account of Dividend income and the same was allowed by the A.O. However, as per provision of section U/s.14A of the I.T.Act, read with the Rule-D, expenditure should have been worked out of Rs.97,315/-(1/2% of average value of investment of Rs.1,94,62,975/-). Thus, it has resulted in underassessment of income of Rs.96,315/-.

ii) Further, loss on sale of motor car amounting to Rs.1,93,771/- was wrongly allowed to the assessee as it ceased to exist in the relevant block of assets on the last day of the previous year.

iii) FBT of Rs.11,546/- and income Tax of Rs.3,190/- were required to be disallowed as these were pertaining to earlier years.

Consider that the order passed u/s.143(3) of the A.O. is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

You are, therefore, hereby allowed an opportunity of being heard and to show cause as to why the order passed by the A.O. u/s.143(3) for the A.Y. 2008-09 should not be enhanced/modified or fresh assessment be directed accordingly. The date of hearing fixed on 06/03/2013 at 2.30 P.M.

I am directed to request you to represent in your case either personally or through authorised representative on the above mentioned date & time.

Your Faithfully

Sd/-

(Brij Lal Meena)

ACIT- Hqrs-21, Kolkata

For- Commissioner of Income Tax”

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, the respondent/assessee appeared before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-21 and submitted his explanation/reply on the points noted in the afore-quoted notice. The Commissioner of Income Tax considered the explanation/submission of the respondent/assessee and passed an order dated 20.03.2013 under Section 263 of the Act, 1961 holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest or revenue. Accordingly, the CIT set aside the assessment order and remitted the matter to the assessing officer to pass an order in accordance with the provision of the Act, 1961 after giving due opportunity to the assessee.

5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the CIT(A), the respondent/assessee filed an appeal being ITA no.707/K9ol/2013 (assessment year 2008-09) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata whi