Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 584 - ITAT KOLKATAValidity of Revision u/s 263 - Improper enquiries made by AO - bogus long term capital gain through share transaction of a penny stock company - CIT noted discrepancies in assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 144B - opinion of the Commissioner that the AO had not made proper enquiries or verifications should be based on his objective satisfaction and not a subjective satisfaction from the assessment order - HELD THAT:- CIT, taking shelter in Explanation 2 to Section 263(1) of the Act, held that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground of lack of enquiry, which, in our view, is a general observation and no specific observation has been made in respect of any of the details or evidence furnished by the assessee and as to why the ld. Pr. CIT was not satisfied about such details/replies furnished by the assessee. Simply because the ld. Pr. CIT felt that the Assessing Officer should have made further enquiries on the same issue or that the case was to be examined from some another angle, the same, in our view, cannot be a valid ground to set aside the assessment order. If such an action is allowed by the ld. Pr. CIT in his revision jurisdiction then, there would be no end to litigation and there would not be any finality to the assessment. The Explanation 2 to Section 263(1) of the Act does not give unbridled powers to the ld. Pr. CIT to simply set aside the assessment order by saying that the Assessing Officer was required to make further enquiries without pointing out as to what was lacking in the enquiries made by the Assessing Officer and why the ld. Pr. CIT was not satisfied with the reply and evidence furnished by the assessee. As per ‘Narayan Tatu Rane [2016 (5) TMI 1162 - ITAT MUMBAI] as held that Explanation 2(a) to section 263 of the Act does not authorise or give unfettered power and to revise each and every order on the ground that the Assessing Officer should have made more enquiries and verifications. As decided in the case of ‘PCIT vs. Usha Polychem India (P) Ltd’ [2023 (5) TMI 419 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] where Principal Commissioner involved revision jurisdiction under section 263 in case of assessee on basis of an information received from Dy. Director (Investigation) regarding huge amount of unaccounted funds received in bank account of assessee, since a reassessment proceeding was already invoked and completed on basis of same information, impugned revision was unjustified - Decided in favour of assessee.
|