9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I 10 - SUPREME COURT ] and held that the phrase prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO and every loss of revenue as a consequence of the order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Where two views are possible and ITO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the order passed by the AO cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Tribunal has held that the CIT while exercising powers u/s 263 of the Act had relied on an order passed under Section 263 of the Act in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08. The aforesaid order has been quashed by the Tribunal [ 2011 (12) TMI 590 - ITAT, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Tribunal on an appeal against the order under section 263 surge assessment year 2006-07 which was disposed of by the tribunal on 28-12-2011? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee s case, the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay of 360 days by relying on the order of the Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji and others reported in 167 ITR page 471, medicine of the High Court in CIT V/s ISRO satellite Centre in ITA number 532/Bang/2008 and that of the Tribunal in the case of Shakunatala Hegde v/s ACIT in ITA no.2785/Bang/2004 without appreciating that the circumstances were condoning the delay in cases relied upon by the tribunal or different and distinguishable from that of the present case? (ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laring total income of ₹ 2,10,76,230/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings on the ground that Revenue Audit Objection was raised in case of assessee with regard to depreciation of ₹ 75,27,156/- on the lease hold land as intangible asset under the Act at the rate of 25%. The Commissioner by an order dated 26.11.2011 held that the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee assailed the aforesaid order in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal by an order dated 30.10.2013 inter alia held that A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he, may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. 5. Thus, from close scrutiny of Section 263 it is evident that twin conditions are required to be satisfied for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and secondly, that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of error in the order of assessment. 6. The aforesaid provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
