2022 (11) TMI 582 - AT - Income Tax
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - as per CIT, no enquiry of large agricultural income and non-verification of unsecured loans taken during the year done - case of the assessee was also selected for limited scrutiny under CASS on these issues and AO after raising specific quarries from the assessee in the notice issued u/s 142(1) - HELD THAT:- AO had issued notices u/s 133(6) on all these parties had duly responded to the said notices by filing ITRs, bank statements, confirmations, and audited annual accounts evidencing the said payments. Therefore we have matetrials before us on the basis of which we reasonable believe that the observations of the Ld. PCIT that the AO has not examined the issues and no notices u/s 133(6) were issued to the lenders is wrong and against the facts on record.
We also note that the PCIT has failed to demonstrate as to how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as no relevant findings has not recorded by the PCIT showing that the assessment framed is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
As decided in M/s Bengal United Credit Belani Housing Ltd [2022 (4) TMI 1465 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd [2022 (11) TMI 486 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] PCIT has to record reasons justifying the invoking of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act as to how the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In absence of which the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 is not sustainable under the Act. We therefore respectfully following set aside the order passed u/s 263 of the Act by ld. PCIT on the ground of invalid jurisdiction. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.