9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y provided as called for. In the absence of any perceptible error in the action of the AO pointed out in the revisional order, the explanation offered on behalf of the assessee appears plausible. AO in the instant case, has specifically examined both the issues raised by the Pr.CIT albeit not probably in the manner in which the Pr.CIT would have liked but this cannot be the sacrosanct ground for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The Assessing Officer did raise the questions on points in issue and there appears to be active application of mind by the AO although, did not meet the expectation of the Pr.CIT. Thus one cannot possibly say that the AO had sleepwalked on the issues involved. Noticeably, the Pr.CIT himself has not entered into any minimal inquiry on the issues himself, if so considered expedient and there is not even prima facie demonstration of fallacy in the action of the AO which rendered the order erroneous and which also simultaneously caused prejudice to the revenue. Merely because the expectations of the Revisional Commissioner are purportedly not met, it should not, in our opinion, necessarily trigger revisional action under Section 263 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Pr.CIT eventually set aside the assessment order framed under Section 143(3) and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment in terms of observations made in revisional order. 5. Aggrieved by the revisional order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT seeking to challenge the revisional order. 6. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee adverted to the solitary show cause notice and submitted that the show cause notice broadly alleges failure of the Assessing Officer to investigate/verify details filed in respect of suspicious transactions relating to Long Term Capital Gain on shares rendering the assessment so made to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6.1 In this regard, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the case was selected for scrutiny mainly on the grounds of suspicious transactions of Long Term Capital Gains as well as addition to building amount. The ld. counsel adverted to the replies and submitted that the specific replies were placed before the AO with regard to the Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.22,22,383/-. The assessee inter alia filed the proof of acquis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able implicating the assessee for any concerted or manipulative action which may give rise to any kind of suspicion of any fictions gains. As further asserted, the AO in its own wisdom has taken a plausible view in discharge of his quasi-judicial function based on facts available to him. The view taken by the Assessing Officer thus cannot be outrightly rejected and branded as erroneous per se within the sweep of supervisory jurisdiction by invoking doctrine of preponderance of probabilities. 6.2 The ld. counsel thus contended that the Assessing Officer has taken a fair view in the totality of circumstances which is not capable of casual displacement by a set aside action in the absence of any cogent material in the possession of the Pr.CIT. The Pr.CIT has sought to dislodge a quasi-judicial action in a casual manner simply because in his opinion a greater inquiry in the issue was needed. The ld. counsel submitted that expecting an Assessing Officer to examine each and every item of income or expenditure or other transactions to the hilt is fraught with serious constraints and is neither feasible nor desirable. It was finally contended that quasi-judicial action of Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 263 of the Act as well as other materials referred to and relied upon by the respective parties and case laws cited. 8.1 Supervisory jurisdiction vested under Section 263 of the Act enables the concerned Pr.CIT/CIT to review the records of any proceedings and order passed therein by the AO. It empowers the Revisional Commissioner concerned to call for and examine the records of another proceeding under the Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, then 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 the order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing afresh assessment. Thus, the revisional powers conferred on the Pr.CIT/CIT under s.263 of the Act are of wide amplitude with a view to address the revenue risks which are objectively justifiable. 8.2 In the instant case, the substantive issue that emerges for adjudication is whether the Pr.CIT under the umbrella of revisionary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lecting requisite evidences of external nature and in the absence of any adverse material per se, came to a conclusion which is plausible for a reasonable person instructed in law. The object of revisional power is not to impinge upon the powers of the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment and interfere therewith in all cases merely on account of some inadequacy in manner and extent of enquiry. 8.5 As regards additions to bulding account, the case of assessee are two fold (i) no opportunity was given to assessee in clear violation of mandate of opportunity expressly provided under Section 263 of the Act and thus this issue could not be raked up at the first place (ii) the increase in capital is only Rs.14.40 lakh as against 78.46 lakh alleged by the Pr.CIT. The Pr.CIT was acted casually. All primary details were duly provided as called for. 8.6 In the absence of any perceptible error in the action of the Assessing Officer pointed out in the revisional order, the explanation offered on behalf of the assessee appears plausible. The Assessing Officer, in the instant case, has specifically examined both the issues raised by the Pr.CIT albeit not probably in the manner in whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
