Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 666 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) for investment is overseas entities - HELD THAT:- PCIT is not entitled to invoke the revisional power u/s 263 of the Act regarding the issue mentioned above. So far as the other issue regarding expenses of Rs.8.90 crores is concerned, we find that the AO issued the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 02.10.2017 in which the relevant enquiry has been raised. Subsequently, after the reply of the assessee, the AO passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. In the said order, one possible view has already been taken. Examining the issue again and again nowhere seems justifiable. When a possible view has been taken by AO then the assessment is not liable to be reopened again on the basis of the second view if any taken by Ld. PCIT. In this regard, we also find support of the decision in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [1997 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT], CIT Vs. Nirav Modi [2016 (6) TMI 1004 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], Aditya Builders [2015 (9) TMI 1304 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] CIT Vs. Tata Teleservices (Mah) Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 175 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015 (2) TMI 732 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Therefore, taking into account of all the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the order u/s 263 of the Act is wrong against law and facts, therefore, the same is hereby ordered to be set aside.
|