| |
The Tax PublishersITA No. 2799/Del/2018
2019 TaxPub(DT) 4600 (Del-Trib)INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
Even in case of inadequate enquiry it was incumbent for CIT to conduct enquiry and not merely remit the matter to AO without conducting any verifciation/enquiry. Accordingly, invocation of jurisdiction under section 263 was not in accordance with law, especially when AO had taken a possible view.
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - CIT alleging lack of enquiry on AO's part -
CIT held assessment order to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground of AO not having examined source of introduction of huge capital in assessee-firm during the year thoroughtly.Held: Notice under section 148 had been issued in case of partner and, therefore, revenue was otherwise not without any legal recourse of examining investment in assessee firm. Moreover, acceptance of capital introduction from partner on the evidence placed on record was possible view and, not an unsustainable view and even in case of inadequate enquiry it was incumbent for CIT to conduct enquiry and not merely remit the matter to AO without conducting any verifciation/enquiry. Accordingly, invocation of jurisdiction under section 263 was not in accordance with law.
Relied:Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1227 (SC) and CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1548 (SC), Pr.CIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Del) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4058 (Del-HC) and CIT v. DLF Ltd. [(2013) 350 ITR 555 (Del) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 340 (Del-HC)].
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2013-14
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|