SC: Externally Procured Parts Given For Assembly, Not Used in Manufacture, Not Liable to Excise Duty  ||  SC: Upholding Surendra Koli’s Conviction on Rejected Evidence Would Violate Articles 14 and 21  ||  SC: In Execution Petition, Decree-Holder Must Prove Violation by Judgment Debtor  ||  SC: Insurers Must Compensate Accident Victims Despite Policy Breach, Can Recover From Owner  ||  Kerala HC: Long-Term Posting of Same Police Officer at Sabarimala May Affect Transparency, Efficiency  ||  Delhi HC: Post-Dated Cheques Given as Security Attract Section 138 NI Act After Liability Arises  ||  MP High Court: Railways Liable for Deaths on Tracks if it Fails to Take Preventive Measures  ||  Ker HC: NDPS Case Stands Even if Contraband Listed in Ml, if Chemical Report Shows Equivalent Weight  ||  Kerala HC: Father’s Retirement Benefits Can Be Attached for Child Maintenance Despite S.60(1)(g) CPC  ||  Supreme Court: A Decree Declared 'Nullity' Can be Challenged at Any Stage, Including Execution    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved