SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment  ||  Delhi HC: Mere Possession of Visa Does Not Confer an Unconditional Right to Enter India  ||  Delhi HC: Every Insensitive or Objectionable Matrimonial Act Does Not Amount to Cruelty  ||  J&K&L HC: Fake Driving Licence Does Not Exonerate Insurer If Driver Has a Valid Licence  ||  P&H HC: Safety Council Report and CCTV Cannot Be Rejected at Charge Stage for Lack of Proof  ||  Delhi High Court Stays Rs. 213 Crore SAIL Payout to British Firm over Unstamped Arbitral Award  ||  Allahabad HC: Bar Council Cannot Suspend Advocate’s Licence Pending Disciplinary Inquiry  ||  SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void    

Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. Cit, New Delhi - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (14 Feb 2022)

For exercising power under Section 263 of IT Act, there should be material on record to prove that order is not only prejudicial to the interest of Revenue but also erroneous in nature

MANU/ID/0161/2022

Direct Taxation

Present appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], framed under Section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961 [IT Act] pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that, the learned PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act and further erred in holding the assessment and rectification order passed under Section 143(3) and 154/143(3) of the IT Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

For exercising power under Section 263 of the IT Act, there should be material on record which would satisfy the ld. PCIT in a prima facie manner that the order is not only prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue but also erroneous in nature. If any of these factors is not satisfied, he cannot assume jurisdiction to initiate suo moto power of revision.

A perusal of the order of the PCIT framed under Section 263 of the IT Act shows that it is solely based upon the letter sent by the Assessing Officer proposing for invoking proceedings under Section 263 of the Act in the case of the assessee.

Present is not a case of lack of enquiry or assessment being framed in haste. Proper enquiries were made by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and after considering all the facts and evidences, the Assessing Officer took a view which is a plausible view. Therefore, it is not open to the learned PCIT to direct a re-enquiry as he is of a different view.

The assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT is bad in law. The order of the learned PCIT is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   JURISDICTION   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved