9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Malabar Industrial Co. vs. CIT [ 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] , CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [ 2007 (11) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex [ 2017 (7) TMI 620 - SUPREME COURT] held that an assessment or re-assessment, as the case may be, could only be revised in case it satisfies the twin conditions of erroneous as well as causing prejudice to the interest of revenue; simultaneously. There is no such indication in the Pr.CIT s above extracted directions. Coupled with this, he has also directed the Assessing officer to cancel the assessment himself which the latter has no jurisdiction to do so as per Sec. 263 of the Act. We thus annul the impugned revision order itself for the precise twin afore mentioned r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT s revision directions contained in his order reading as under: 2. Later, it was found that the assessee paid cash aggregate of/which is exceeding ₹ 20,000/- in a single day for the purchases made from M/s. Pearl Beverages Limited during the year under consideration and the total of such cash payments works out to ₹ 76,76,197/- during the financial year 2008-09 relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. 3. Therefore, a show cause notice u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28-03-2016 was issued to the assessee calling for assessee's objections as to why the assessment order u/s 143(3) rws 147 dated 06-01-2015 should not be revised u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For this purpose, the case was posted for h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the two courses adopted by the learned Pr.CIT herein. 3.2. Hon ble apex court s land mark decision Malabar Industrial Co. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) ad CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) held that an assessment or re-assessment, as the case may be, could only be revised in case it satisfies the twin conditions of erroneous as well as causing prejudice to the interest of revenue; simultaneously. There is no such indication in the Pr.CIT s above extracted directions. Coupled with this, he has also directed the Assessing officer to cancel the assessment himself which the latter has no jurisdiction to do so as per Sec. 263 of the Act. We thus annul the impugned rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
