Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 578 - ITAT DELHIRevision u/s 263 - examining the correctness of the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IC - Held that:- Distinction must be kept in mind by the CIT while exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act between the cases of no inquiry and the cases of lack of inquiry and in the absence of findings that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue the exercise of the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is not sustainable. We further observed that the order of the AO may be or may not be wrong but CIT cannot direct consideration of this ground of the lack of inquiry but only when the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue the CIT can quash the asstt. order and direct the AO to reframe the assessment u/s 263 of the Act. We are inclined to hold that the order cannot be passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act to ask the AO to decide whether the assessment order was erroneous or not . The CIT must after recording reasons hold that the order is erroneous then only assessment order can be quashed and the AO may be directed to pass the asstt. order in pursuant to order of CIT u/s 263 of the Act. Coming the factual matrix in the present case, from careful perusal of the impugned order we clearly observe that the CIT has stressed on the mismatch and discrepancy in the form No.10CCB and Form No. 3CD. Replying to the notice u/s 263 of the Act the assessee submitted auditors report pertaining to 2008-09 and asstt. year 2009-10 which make it clear that the discrepancy and mismatch arose due to typographical and clerical mistake as the assessee company claimed u/s chapter VI-A amounting to ₹ 14,17,940/- in asstt. year 2008-09 and this figure remained unchanged in the text auditor report and report for the asstt. year 2009-10 which is clear form annexure 5 and annexure 6 of the appeal CIT rejected our above explanation threshold without assigning any reason and the CIT wrongly hold that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We further hold that CIT was grossly erred and not justified in remitting the matter to the file of the AO for fresh consideration and adjudication as this is out of ambit of powers of CIT u/s 263 of the Act. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of ITO vs. DG Housing Project Ltd. (2012 (3) TMI 227 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) we reach to the conclusion that the order passed u/s 263 of the Act is bad on facts and in law therefore the same deserve to be quashed and we quash the same. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|