Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 545 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - share capital and share premium undisclosed - second round of revision u/s 263 on the ground that the AO has not conducted any enquiry into the issues as pointed out by the ld. Pr. CIT - HELD THAT:- This is not a case of no enquiry or lack of enquiry as the AO has made in enquiry and taken a view on the basis of examination of the evidences furnished by the assessee as well as by the subscribers. In our opinion, the PCIT cannot exercise the revisionary jurisdiction to set aside the assessment where the AO has conducted enquiries and taken a plausible view accepting the contentions of the assessee. Where the PCIT was of the view that AO has not conducted enquiry to come to the conclusion on the issue, then the ld. PCIT is duty bound to make an enquiry and reach a conclusion that order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of D G Housing Projects Ltd. [2012 (3) TMI 227 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Twin conditions have to be satisfied as envisaged in section 263 of the Act in absence of which the revisionary jurisdiction is not available to the Pr. CIT . Even if one of the two condition is satisfied the jurisdiction is not available. However in the present case the twin conditions were not satisfied as the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as all the facts were examined by the AO on the basis of details and explanation of the assessee before the AO and he has taken a correct view based on his examination of records furnished by the assessee as well as by the subscribers. The case of the assessee squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been held that the jurisdiction is not available to the Pr. CIT where the twin conditions as envisaged by section 263 of the Act were not satisfied. The Hon’ble Court has even held that where one of the two conditions are satisfied, the provisions of section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. We also find merit in the second plea of the assessee that revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is not available on the same issue for the second time and this has been held in a series of decisions of Bhagwati Vintrade Pvt Ltd. [2022 (11) TMI 1324 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and PCIT Vs M/S Intent Dealers Pvt Ltd[2022 (11) TMI 1432 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] - Appeal of assessee allowed.
|