9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in quashing the revisional order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was granted to the Assesee to set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer while invoking Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? " 2. The aforesaid question of law has arisen on the following factual backdrop:- (i) The respondent herein i.e. assessee is the company engaged in manufacturing and selling of sponge iron and MS ingots and for the assessment year 2015-16, it submitted its return on 27.09.2015 declaring taxable income of Rs. 7,99,351/- and thereafter, the return wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endra Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that order passed by the PCIT was in the teeth of Section 263 of the Act, 1961 and also in violation of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 11 SCC 748 and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission made herein above and perused the records minutely. 6. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the scope of Section 263 of the Act, 1961. 7. Section 263 of the Act, 1961 confers a supervisory power of revision on the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner in respect of orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely because the Commissioner holds a different opinion on the matter. 10. The High Court of Bombay in the matter of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) observed that if the Income Tax Officer (ITO/AO) has made inquiries with regard to a particular issue, elicited responses, and then taken a view, the mere fact that the AO's order does not discuss the issue in detail or that the Commissioner disagrees with the conclusion does not render the order erroneous and held as under:- "The ITO's conclusion cannot be termed as 'erroneous' simply because the Commissioner does not agree with it. An AO's order cannot be held to be erroneous simply because it did not make an elaborate discussion." 11. This salutary p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all, can the order be prejudicial requiring correction". 14. Coming to the facts of the present case it is evident that against the order of assessee the PCIT in exercise of its revisionary power, issued show cause notice on 11.03.2021 and signed it on 15.03.2021 at 1:53 pm, requiring the assessee under Section 263 of the Act, 1961, to show cause as to why the impugned assessment so framed under Section 143 (3) of the Act, 1961, should not be modified/set aside holding that such order is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is appropriate to notice here that the date of hearing was also fixed on 15.03.2021 at 4:00 pm. It appears from the record that on 15.03.2021, the assessee has not appeared for the reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
