TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on under Section 263 of the Act. Firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and secondly, that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of error in the order of assessment. The aforesaid provision was considered by the Supreme Court in MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY VS. CIT , [ 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT ] and it was held that the phrase prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer and every loss of revenue as a consequence of the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It was further held that where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the financial years following 1.4.2007, and did not intend to include therein more than one financial year simultaneously? 2. The factual background in which the aforesaid substantial question of law arises for our consideration needs mention. The assessee is an individual, who had derived income from Capital Gains and other sources. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 on 06.07.2009 declaring total income of ₹ 1,32,59,530/-. The case was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. Thereafter, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 22.11.2011 concluded the assessement and accepted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... six months from the date of transfer. Thus, it was held that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was one of the possible view and therefore, the power under Section 263 of the Act in the fact situation could not have been exercised by the Commissioner of Income-Tax. In the result, the Order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax was quashed. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction of ₹ 1 crore under Section 54EC of the Act for the Assessment Year under consideration. It is further submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in law in relying on the decision in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. 7. Thus, from close scrutiny of Section 263 of the Act, it is evident that twin conditions are required to be satisfied for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
