INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 263

Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - AO having taken one of the possible views - CIT not satisfied with the extent of inquiry conducted by AO

CIT held assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground that although assessee was not able to submit/explain the source of Rs. 15 lakhs deposited in savings bank account, AO instead of making entire addition, estimated profit on the same. Held: As evident, assessee had explained source of impugned cash deposit to be sale proceeds of banana and AO applied profit rate thereon. No doubt, CIT might not agree with the view taken by AO, however, it could not be said that it was a case of no inquiry or that view taken by the AO was not a possible view clearly, there was some inquiry and the CIT did not agree with the extent of inquiry conducted by AO as sufficient, however he could not invoke jurisdiction under section 263.

Supported by :CIT v. Leisure Wear Export 2010 TaxPub(DT) 2250 (Del-HC) : (2012) 341 ITR 166 (Del), CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1128 (Del-HC) : (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Del), Maxpak Investment Ltd. v. ACIT : 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1594 (Del-Trib) : (2006) 104 TTJ 881 (Del), Anil Aggarwal v. DCIT 2004 TaxPub(DT) 87 (Chd-Trib) : (2004) 90 TTJ 946 (Chd), Ganesh Builders v. CIT 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1765 (Jod-Trib) : (2013) 158 TTJ 801 (Jodh), Colourcraft v. Colorcraft Kashimira Ceramic Compound. v. ITO, Ward-4 (4), Thane. 2008 TaxPub(DT) 424 (Bom-HC) : (2008) 303 ITR (A. T.) 7 and SSI v. DCIT 2004 TaxPub(DT) 1924 (Chen-Trib) : (2004) 85 TTJ 1049 (Chen)

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2011-12

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 263

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT