9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT:- PCIT received proposal for revision from AO and the AO has even placed draft-notices before PCIT for signature. AR is successfully able to demonstrate that the revision in these cases had been conducted on the bedrock of AO s proposal and draft-notice. That means, the conditions prescribed in section 263 are not fulfilled As relying on Alfa Laval Lund AB [ 2021 (11) TMI 327 - ITAT PUNE] the present case is having a jurisdictional deficit resulting into vitiating the impugned order. Therefore, we quash the impugned order on legality aspect itself and restore the original assessment-order passed by AO - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s narrated in the beginning, those revision-orders are impugned orders in present appeals. Being aggrieved by impugned orders, the assessees have come in these appeals before us. 4. Ld. AR for the assessee made a very strong and straightforward submission attacking the jurisdictional deficit in the revisionary-action undertaken by PCIT. To demonstrate this, he filed copies of record (order-sheets) obtained by assessee from Income-tax department in all four cases; the same are scanned and reproduced below: 5. These order-sheets are in the sequence of captioned appeals starting from ITA No. 144/Ind/2020. It is submitted by Ld. AR that the facts flowing from all order-sheets are same except change of dates. Therefore, it would suffice to tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT on the very same date to assessee goes to reveal that the PCIT has not applied his mind to the case of assessee at all, he has mechanically signed and approved the draft notice placed before him. Ld. AR submitted that the issues raised in revision were quite substantial which required a deep examination and consideration of assessment-records but the PCIT has given immediate approval/signature which shows that he had not even examined the record of proceeding; he had signed the draft-notice mechanically. Ld. AR submitted that the verdict of section 263 is very clear, specific and unambiguous which prescribes "The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23.05.2016". It is thus manifest that the edifice of the revision in the extant case has been laid on the bedrock of receipt of the proposal from the AO. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to have a glance at sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act, which runs as under:- "The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it 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 en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ests of the revenue should flow from and be the consequence of his examination of the record of proceedings. If such a consideration is not preceded by the examination of record of the proceedings under the Act, the condition for revision does not get magnetized. 5. It is trite that a power which vests exclusively in one authority, can't be invoked or cause to be invoked by another, either directly or indirectly. Section 263 of the Act confers power on the CIT to revise an assessment order, subject to certain conditions. Instantly, we are confronted with a situation in which the revision was initiated on the basis of the AO sending a proposal to the CIT and not on the CIT suo motu calling for and examining the record of the assessment pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which proposal is mooted before PCIT does not have any merit because it cannot be said that the PCIT could not apply mind on the same day. 9. We have considered rival contentions of both sides and perused the material placed before us. On perusal of the order-sheets (reproduced above) and show-cause notices issued by PCIT in all four cases, we find that the PCIT received proposal for revision from AO and the AO has even placed draft-notices before PCIT for signature. Thus, the Ld. AR is successfully able to demonstrate that the revision in these cases had been conducted on the bedrock of AO's proposal and draft-notice. That means, the conditions prescribed in section 263 are not fulfilled. We have gone through the decision of ITAT, Pune ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
