| |
| The Tax Publishers2022 TaxPub(DT) 2380 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
Merely because AO had not elaborated the issue in the assessment order would not entitle PCIT to exercise jurisdiction under section 263, therefore, PCIT invalidly and improperly exercised the jurisdiction under section 263 to hold that assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and order passed under section 263 was quashed.
|
Revision under section 263 - Validity - Allegation that AO had not elaborated the issue -
The only common issue raised in the grounds of appeal by assessee was against the order of PCIT wrongly exercising jurisdiction under section 263 holding the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and thereby revising the assessment by ignoring the fact that the issue has been examined in the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 in great detail by AO. Held: Mere fact that AO had not elaborated the issue in the assessment order would not entitle PCIT to exercise jurisdiction under section 263 of the act and the case of the assessee was supported by the decision of High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Limited (1993) 71 taxmann.com 585 (Bombay) : 1993 TaxPub(DT) 1357 (Bom-HC), wherein High Court had held that PCIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction under section 263 merely on the ground that AO did not discuss the issue in the assessment order which indicated non application of mind as claim of the assessee required to be examined. High Court has held that the order of AO cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order the AO did not make any elaborate discussion. In view of same, PCIT invalidly and improperly exercised the jurisdiction under section 263 to hold that assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and order passed under section 263 was quashed.
Followed:The CIT v. Shri Nirav Modi (2016) 71 taxmann.com 272 (Bombay HC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3506 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Gabriel India Limited (1993) 71 taxmann.com 585 (Bombay) : 1993 TaxPub(DT) 1357 (Bom-HC), Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai v. Sumatichand Tolamal Gouti (2019) 111 taxmann.com 287 (SC) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6318 (SC) and Pr. CIT 2 v. Shree Gayatri Associates (2019) 106 taxmann.com 31 (SC) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 2884 (SC)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2014-15
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|