9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1965 - AT - Income TaxValidity of Revision u/s 263 - exclusive jurisdiction u/s 263 of PCIT - PCIT has called for proposal from JCIT/Assessing Officer to exercise his jurisdiction - HELD THAT - Since the department could not controvert the contents of the letter of the JCIT which clearly brings out that ld. PCIT has called for proposal from JCIT/Assessing Officer to exercise the jurisdiction u/s 263. It means the ld. PCIT has not exercised the jurisdiction u/s 263 himself but he exercised the jurisdiction at the instance of the AO / JCIT which is against the provision of law. The power of revisional jurisdiction is vested only with the ld. PCIT. Therefore we note that the exercise of the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act itself is not in accordance with law hence we cancel the order passed by ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. - Appeal of assessee allowed.
Issues involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Delegation of revisional jurisdiction to Assessing Officer. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act: The appeal filed by the Assessee for assessment year 2012-13 challenged an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Durgapur under section 263 of the Act. The Assessee contended that revisional jurisdiction can only be exercised by the Principal Commissioner himself after examining the assessment records and determining that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Assessee relied on a Co-ordinate Bench decision to support this argument, emphasizing that the power to interfere with the Assessing Officer's order lies solely with the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. The Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act was cited, outlining conditions under which an order is deemed erroneous. The Tribunal agreed with the Assessee's argument, emphasizing that the power of revisional jurisdiction is vested only in the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, and cannot be delegated to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found merit in the Assessee's contention and quashed the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 by the Principal Commissioner, as it was initiated at the instance of the Assessing Officer, contrary to the provisions of the law. Issue 2: Delegation of revisional jurisdiction to Assessing Officer: The Tribunal noted that the Principal Commissioner had called for a proposal from the Junior Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) to exercise jurisdiction under section 263, indicating that the Principal Commissioner did not personally exercise the jurisdiction as required by law. The power of revisional jurisdiction is explicitly vested in the Principal Commissioner, and the Tribunal found that the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not in accordance with the law since it was initiated by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Tribunal canceled the order passed by the Principal Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. The Assessee's appeal was allowed based on these findings. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that such authority is exclusively vested in the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and cannot be delegated to the Assessing Officer. The decision highlighted the importance of adherence to legal provisions and the need for the appropriate authority to exercise revisional powers in tax matters.
|
