Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 948 - ITAT BANGALORERevision u/s 263 by CIT - addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE - lack of inquiry or inadequate inquiry- Assessee argued the provisions of section 69A was not attracted, hence, section 115BBE of the I.T.Act has no application - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the assessee has offered the entire cash seized as part of the income and paid duly the taxes thereon. The A.O. had taken a conscious decision while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T.Act. When two views are possible and the A.O. adopts one of the views, the PCIT cannot treat the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In support of the above proposition, we rely on the judgment in the case of CIT v. Max India Limited 2007 (11) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] - The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Limited [2009 (9) TMI 633 - DELHI HIGH COURT] had held that lack of inquiry or inadequate inquiry by the A.O. cannot be a reason to invoke the revisionary powers u/s 263. In the instant case, on perusal of the assessment order, it is clear that the enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer, and accordingly, the assessment order was concluded. The shortfall of enquiry or inadequacy of enquiry cannot be termed as total lack of enquiry. Hence, the order of the assessment cannot be held to erroneous. On identical facts, the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Alfa Laval Lund AB [2021 (11) TMI 327 - ITAT PUNE] had held that when revisionary proceedings have been triggered by the A.O. by sending a proposal to the PCIT and then the latter passing the order u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, there is jurisdictional deficit resulting into vitiating the impugned order. Thus we hold that the PCIT is not justified in passing the impugned order u/s 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.
|