9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eous merely because according to the CIT, the order should have been written more elaborately or for substituting the view of the Assessing Officer with that of the CIT. The Court held that merely because the CIT had a different view from that reached by the Assessing Officer would not by itself make the view of the Assessing Officer erroneous. To be an erroneous order it must be in breach of law. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act can only be exercised on cumulative satisfaction of the twin conditions viz. of the order being erroneous in law and the order being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thus in this case, one of the two conditions precedent to exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09 determined the respondent-asseesse's total income at ₹ 17.13 crores under Section 143(3) of the Act. This was after allowing rebate of ₹ 4.36 crores under Section 88E of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer by an order dated 26 April 2010 allowed a rectification application working out the rebate under Section 88E of the Act to ₹ 4.80 crores. 4. Thereafter the Commissioner of Income Tax (the 'CIT') in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act passed an order on 15 March 2012. By the above order, the CIT directed the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment denovo after allowing rebate under Section 88E of the Act on more careful examination. 5. Being aggrieved, the respondent-assessee ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e satisfaction of the twin conditions viz. of the order being erroneous in law and the order being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thus in this case, one of the two conditions precedent to exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act viz. Order being erroneous in law is not satisfied. 7. Moreover the CIT in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act directed the Assessing Officer to redetermine the rebate allowable under Section 88E of the Act after holding that the same needs more careful examination on the part of the Assessing Officer. This itself indication of the fact that this is not the case of lack of enquiry, but at the highest it can be a case of inadequate enquiry. It is settled position in law that inad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
