| |
| The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 3013 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
Though Pr. CIT was free to exercise his jurisdiction on consideration of all relevant facts, however, a full opportunity to controvert the same and to explain the circumstances surrounding such facts, as might be considered relevant by assessee, was to be afforded to him by the Pr. CIT prior to the finalization of the decision. As it was not done so, issue was remanded to Pr. CIT for the limited purpose of providing an opportunity of hearing to assessee on the points taken in impugned revision proceedings.
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - Pr. CIT had not given any opportunity of hearing to the assessee on the precise point on which powers of revision was exercised -
Assessee challenged correctness of the order passed by Pr.CIT under section 263 on the ground that Pr.CIT passed impugned order on a completely different basis as against the reason specified in the notice under section 263 without giving any specific opportunity to assessee thereby violating principles of natural justice. Held: Though Pr. CIT was free to exercise his jurisdiction on consideration of all relevant facts, however, a full opportunity to controvert the same and to explain the circumstances surrounding such facts, as might be considered relevant by assessee, was to be afforded to him by the Pr. CIT prior to the finalization of the decision. As it was not done so, issue was remanded to Pr. CIT for the limited purpose of providing an opportunity of hearing to assessee on the points taken in impugned revision proceedings.
Followed:CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2291 (SC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Matter remanded.
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|