| The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 3404 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
Where AO had verified all the aspects, the view taken by Pr. CIT was only a second view which was not permissible under section 263. It is the settled proposition of law that for invoking jurisdiction under section 263, the twin conditions, namely, the order is erroneous and the order was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue must be satisfied, therefore, the same cannot be treated as erroneous and proceedings under section 263 also did not survive on merit.
|
Revision under section 263 - Validity - AO failed to verify genuineness of claim regarding exemption of Long Term Capital Gain -
The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. During the assessment proceedings, assessee attended the proceedings from time and filed the submissions, along with the relevant documents. AO after considering the submissions and the relevant documents, passed the final assessment order under section 143(3) and accepted the declared income by the assessee. Pr. CIT issued notice under section 263(1) and set aside the original assessment order and directed AO to pass the assessment order afresh.Held: Pr. CIT had not at all taken into consideration the reconciliation in respect of long-term capital gain. AO in the instant case has verified all the aspects and therefore, the view taken by PCIT was only a second view which was not permissible under section 263. It is the settled proposition of law that for invoking jurisdiction under section 263, the twin conditions, namely, the order is erroneous and the order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue must be satisfied. Since AO had called for various details and after verification of the same had passed the order, therefore, the same cannot be treated as erroneous and proceedings under section 263 also did not survive on merit.
Relied:Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. ITO & Anr. [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23976/2017 order dated 29-11-2017 (SC)] : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5217 (SC), CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [Civil Appeal 5009 of 2016 dated 11-5-2016 (SC)], Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1227 (SC), BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2017) 399 ITR 228 (Del) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4820 (Del-HC), Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2834 (Cal-HC), Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [ITA. No.2158/DEL/2017, dt. 25-10-2017] and Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2017) 77 Taxmann.com 285 (SC) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 344 (SC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2015-16
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|