Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (1) TMI 371

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aving heard learned counsel for the appellant/revenue, we found it not to be a fit case for issuance of notice. 2. Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows. On 15.10.2016, the respondent/assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17, declaring its income as Rs. 12,85,64,070/- and the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 07.12.2018. 2.1 However, on 17.03.2021, the Principal Commissioner Income Tax ("PCIT") cancelled the said Assessment Order, invoking Section 263 of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh Assessment Order. Accordingly, on 27.03.2022, the Assessing Officer passed fresh order under Section 143(3) of the Act, recording disallowance .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 263 of the Act did not at all deal with the submissions of the respondent/assessee in reply to the show-cause notice. 4. At this stage, it would be apposite to briefly refer to the legal position pertaining to Section 263 of the Act. 4.1 In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana vs Max India Ltd., (2007) 15 SCC 401, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited vs CIT, (2002) 2 SCC 718 and reiterated that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act; and that where the Income Tax Officer adopts one of the courses permissible in law .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. (See Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT) 8. At the same time, this Court has also laid down that this provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the assessing officer. While interpreting the expression "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue", it is also held that order of the assessing officer cannot be termed as prejudicial simply because assessing officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the assessing officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner did not agree. (See CIT v. Arvind Jewellers.) 9. It is clear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as inadequate, that by itself would not justify invoking Section 263 of the Act. 4.5 In the case of CIT vs New Delhi Television Ltd., (2014) 220 Taxman 43, a coordinate bench of this court examined the provision under consideration herein and observed thus: "In paragraph 6 of the order dated 29th March, 2007, the Commissioner uses the expression "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue" but does not cite any reason or ground for the said conclusion. Use of the words without elucidation indicates, that the said observations are presumptive or a suspicion and mere repetition of words, but this does not satisfy the requirements under Section 263 of the Act. Order under Section 263 must be clear and must set out logical ground a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ved on the respondent/assessee. As mentioned in the order under Section 263 of the Act, on behalf of the respondent/assessee, not just written submissions in response to the show-cause notice were filed but even a chartered accountant and an advocate on behalf of the respondent/assessee attended hearings. But in the order under Section 263 of the Act, the PCIT did not even whisper about the contents of reply to show-cause notice, what to say of holding any enquiry. In the name of dealing with the reply to show-cause notice, the PCIT simply observed that on behalf of the respondent/assessee, legal issue of assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act was raised. But even on that aspect, the PCIT did not record any discussion in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates