| |
| The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 2892 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
Pr. CIT had invoked revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 on the very same point of allowability of LTCL. Hence, revision proceedings invoked by Pr. CIT based on audit objection, which was nothing but borrowed satisfaction and hence, said revisional proceedings under section 263 were to be construed as bad-in-law.
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial ordder - Invocation of jurisdiction by Pr. CIT based on audit objection -
Pr. CIT invoked revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 on the ground that AO despite objection raised by audit party had allowed the claim of long-term capital loss (LTCL) which ought not to have been allowed.Held: Revenue Audit Party had indeed raised an objection on the very same subject of allowability of Long-Term Capital loss and AO had not accepted the same. On personal hearing conducted on 6-12-2016, AO had specifically sought an explanation from assessee regarding allowability of LTCL and assessee had furnished a detailed reply regarding details of LTCL on sale of shares of Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. (ABMWL). Pr. CIT had invoked revisional jurisdiction under section 263 on the very same point of allowability of LTCL. Hence, it could be safely concluded that revision proceedings were invoked by Pr, CIT based on audit objection, which was nothing but borrowed satisfaction. Hence, said revisionary proceedings under section 263 were to be construed as bad-in-law.
Followed:CIT v. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. (2018) 102 taxmann.com 48 (Bom) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5911 (Bom-HC), Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO (2016) 70 Taxmann.com 227 (Mum-Trib) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2516 (Mum-Trib) and Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Dy. CIT ITA No. 2148/Del/2009, dated 2-2-2017.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2013-14
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|