9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the AO has not given any finding in the assessment order would not mean that the issue was not examined by the AO in scrutiny assessment. As in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [ 1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that where the claim of the assessee was allowed by the AO on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in the assessment order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. Thus documents placed on record by the assessee explicitly indicates that the AO had made some enquiries with regard to unsecured loans during the relevant period. The jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be invoked - Decided in favour of assessee. - I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort of his contention, the learned AR of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Alfa Laval Lund AB vs. CIT in ITA No.1287/PUN/2017 for AY 2012-13 decided on 02/11/2021. 3. The learned AR submits that in reply to the show-cause notice, the assesse furnished a detailed reply on 21/02/2022 to the PCIT stating that the AO in scrutiny assessment proceedings had made detailed enquiries. It was further pointed that the AO had made independent enquiries u/s 133 of the Act as well. Some of the parties responded to the notices issued by the AO confirming the transactions. Wherever the parties did not respond, the assesse furnished all the necessary details to the AO. The AO after being satisfied f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the replies furnished by the assessee show that the AO had made detailed enquiries in respect of unsecured loans. Hence, it is not a case of lack of enquiry. 5. Per Contra, Shri Prakash R. Mane representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. 6. Both sides heard. Orders of authorities below and the documents furnished by the assessee considered. 7. The provision of u/s 263 of the Act can be invoked only, if the twin conditions are satisfied that is i) the assessment order is erroneous and ii) prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Both these conditions have to be simultaneously fulfilled. To form a prima facie opinion that the assessment order is erroneous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Alfa Laval Lund AB vs. CIT (supra) in somewhat similar case where a proposal for revision u/s 263 of the Act was received from the AO held as under: 4. Sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act is an enabling provision which confers jurisdiction on the CIT to revise an assessment order which he considers erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The process of revision u/s 263 of the Act initiates only when the CIT calls for and examines the record of any proceeding under this Act and considers that any order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The twin conditions of (i) the CIT calling for and examining the record; succeeded by ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oposal to the CIT and not on the CIT suo -motu calling for and examining the record of the assessment proceedings and thereafter considering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The AO recommending a revision to the CIT has no statutory sanction and is a course of action unknown to the law. If AO, after passing an assessment order, ITA No.1287/PUN/2017 6 finds something amiss in it to the detriment of the Revenue, he has ample power to either reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be erroneous simply because in the assessment order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. In the case of Nirav Modi vs. CIT (supra), the Hon ble Bombay High Court has reiterated the above position. Therefore, the documents placed on record by the assessee explicitly indicates that the AO had made some enquiries with regard to unsecured loans during the relevant period. The jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be invoked on an issue that was enquired by the AO during assessment proceedings. 11. Thus, taking into consideration, entire facts of the case we are of considered view that the PCIT has exceeded his jurisdiction while invoking the provision of u/s 263 of the Act. The impugned order is thus, quashed. 12. In the resu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
