TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ablish that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus, where there are two possible views and the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views, no action to exercise powers of revision can arise, nor can revisional power be exercised for directing a fuller enquiry to find out if the view taken is erroneous. This power of revision can be exercised only where no enquiry, as required under the law, is done. It is not open to enquire in case of inadequate inquiry. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act after detailed enquiries and verification and merely because the assessment order is silent, the same cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After perusing the relevant information filed, assessment was completed by accepting the returned income and book profit was also accepted as such. 6. Assuming powers vested upon him by the provisions of section 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act, stating that the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The contents of the notice read as under: ( i) that dividend income amounting to ₹ 82,06,94,446/- was reduced from the income under the head Income from business or profession and was claimed as exempt u/s 10 of the Act. It is seen from the balance sheet that the total non-current investments as on 31/03/2012 are ₹ 38,840.24 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee filed a detailed reply on 21.02.2018 explaining how the assessment is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In its reply, the assessee emphasised that detailed enquiries were made by the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings in relation to the exempt income vis a vis the provisions of section 18A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Rules. In its reply, the assessee specifically mentioned the replies filed during the course of assessment proceedings in relation to the exempt income vis a vis the provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules. 8. After considering the submissions of the assessee and drawing support from the findings given in the order for A.Y 2012-13 framed u/s 263 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 12. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the PCIT. It is the say of the ld. DR that Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act squarely apply on the facts. 13. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. At the very outset, let us consider Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act which was inserted vide Finance Act 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Explanation 2 to section 263 reads as under: Explanation 2 is being inserted in section 263(1) w.e.f. 01.06.2015 to provide that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be made. This reply is exhibited at pages 26 to 32 of the paper book. 17. Considering these facts in totality, it can be safely concluded that the Assessing Officer did raise queries which were complied by the assessee. It is a settled position of law that powers u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. By 'erroneous' is meant contrary to law. Thus, this power cannot be exercised unless the Commissioner is able to establish that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus, where there are two possible views and the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 98 Taxman.com 324 has held that : The Commissioner can take recourse to revisional powers u/s 2634 of the Act on fundamental aspects of a transaction on which a view had been taken and accepted by the Revenue. 24. Considering the facts of the case in the light of judicial decisions discussed hereinabove and on perusal of het facts, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act after detailed enquiries and verification and merely because the assessment order is silent, the same cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd [supra]. 25. The ld. DR has relied upon the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
