| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 5705 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
Even though AO had not discussed details in scrutiny assessment order passed under section 143(3), but it would not give right to PCIT to hold that no investigation or enquiry had been made at assessment stage, so as to invoke revisionary jurisdiction under section 263.
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous of prejudicial order - AO not discussed inguries made in assessment order -
Assessee challenged revisionary jurisdiction assumed by PCIT under section 263 contending that undisclosed long-term capital gains with reference to sale of shares was examined by AO in depth during scrutiny assessment proceedings. Held: Case was selected for scrutiny because the suspicious long-term capital gains earned by assessee. This information must be based on information received from Investigation Wing. Revenue was not justified in contending that report of Investigation Wing was not considered by AO because it was the sole reason for completing the scrutiny assessment, therefore, it could not be believed that AO would not have gone through the material available before him on record. May be AO had not discussed details in assessment order but it would not give right to PCIT to hold that no investigation or enquiry had been made at assessment stage. Thus, assessment order could not be treated as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
REFERRED : ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 1727 (Del-HC) and CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del.) : 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0088 (Del-HC) and CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) : 1993 TaxPub(DT) 1357 (Bom-HC)
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|