Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 118 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry”- As per PCIT claim for deduction u/s 54B came to be allowed by the AO without verification and enquiries - HELD THAT:- If there was enquiry even an inadequate that would be itself give no occasion to the Commissioner to exercise the power of revision u/s 263 as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd [1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Pr.CIT had not brought on record any material to show that the claim made for deduction u/s 54B is not allowable to the assessee. The power of revision u/s 263 cannot be exercised with a view to initiate a roving and fishing enquiry in the matters which we have already concluded - See PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LIMITED VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE I, WARD A, RAJKOT [1976 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] We are of the considered opinion that the AO had allowed the claim for deduction u/s 54B of the Act after due verification and examination of the details filed before the AO and it cannot be said that there is total lack of enquiry on the part of the AO while allowing the claim of the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order cannot be termed as “erroneous”. There is no material on record indicating that the appellant had not satisfied the conditions laid down under the provisions of the Act for claiming exemption u/s 54B - Therefore, the assessment order cannot be branded as “erroneous” and “prejudicial to the interests of the revenue”. CIT is not justified in exercising the power of revision u/s 263 of the Act and order passed u/s 263 by the ld. Pr.CIT is hereby set-aside. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stand allowed.
|