TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 has to be read in conjunction with the expression erroneous order passed by the assessing officer. Further every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the assessing officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the case at hand the Tribunal rightly pointed out that the ground on which notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued was identical to the reason for reopening the assessment earlier. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that no independent enquiry was conducted by the PCIT to justify assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. It is settled legal principle that the PCIT cannot substitute its opinion to that of the assessing officer on the same material which was noted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e? 2. Whether the order of Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in forming the opinion based on the date of issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 24.02.2016 instead of actual issuing date on 31.03.2016 and invalidating the said notice and assessment order? We have heard Mr. Asok Bhowmick, learned Standing counsel for the appellant/revenue, Mr. Mazumder, for respondent/assessee. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Calcutta (PCIT) was justified in invoking its power under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal considered the factual issue and more particularly the fact that on the very same issue the assessment was reopened under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion on his own to come to a conclusion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He also failed to notice that enquiries were in fact made by the Assessing Officer. Furthermore, the Tribunal rightly took note of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT; (2000) 109 TAXMAN P.66 and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. In the said decision the Hon ble Supreme Court pointed out that the phrase prejudicial to the interest of revenue occurring in Section 263 of the Act has to be read in conjunction with the expression erroneous order passed by the assessing officer. Further every loss of revenue as a consequence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
