Supreme Court: Air Force Group Insurance Society qualifies as ‘State’ under Article 12  ||  SC: Anganwadi Workers With Degrees Are Eligible For The 29% Quota For Supervisors in Kerala  ||  SC: Giving Accused the Option of Search Before a Police Officer Breaches Section 50 of the NDPS Act  ||  Gujarat HC: Person is Entitled to Compensation For Injury or Death Within Railway Station Premises  ||  Delhi HC: PMLA Can Apply Even if the Scheduled Offence Occurred Before the Law Came Into Force  ||  J&K&L HC: Accused Can Admit Evidence Recorded under Section 299 Crpc After Appearing in Court  ||  J&K&L HC: District Judge Serving as Reference Court under Land Acquisition Act Acts as a Civil Court  ||  Del HC: Subsequent Bail Pleas From Same FIR Should Usually Go Before the Judge Who Denied the First  ||  J&K&L HC: Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, Despite Statutory Status, is Not a ‘State’ under Article 12  ||  SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation    

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