TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no substance and remained uncorroborated with the support of documentary evidence. Merely based on presumption, questioning the cash deposit during the demonetization period and other issues other than the limited scrutiny such as cash creditors are beyond the domain of the jurisdiction of the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, the action of the PCIT invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act without pointing out specific defects/errors, or specific point of investigation the decision of ld. PCIT to hold the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, is bad in law. In the present case, it could not be said that the assessment order was passed by the AO without making enquiries on the issues of limited s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king into consideration all the facts and, thus, the setting aside of already completed assessment is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That the Principal CIT has erred in invoking the provisions of Expln. 2 to s. 263 as the AO had made due enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings and applied his mind to the issues taken by the Principal CIT under s. 263(1) and, thus, setting aside the assessment is not in order. 4. That the learned Principal CIT has grossly erred in invoking the provisions of s. 263 in spite of the fact that all the facts and material were duly considered by the Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Because the Principal CIT is of the opinion that there is inadequate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on entries of the cash deposit in the bank accounts during the demonetization period. Merely, the PCIT has taken a different view based on presumption and assumption to invoke the provisions of section 263 is bad in law. He, therefore, requested that the PCIT s order u/s 263 be set aside. 4. Per contra, the ld. CIT-DR stands by the impugned order of the PCIT. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record and case law cited above. Admittedly, the assessee s case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason of large cash deposit during the demonetization period and abnormal increase in the sales. It is seen that the AO has issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire dated 20.08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit during the demonetization period and other issues other than the limited scrutiny such as cash creditors are beyond the domain of the jurisdiction of the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, the action of the PCIT invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act without pointing out specific defects/errors, or specific point of investigation the decision of ld. PCIT to hold the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, is bad in law. 7. In the present case, the ld. PCIT has failed to satisfy the twin conditions, as the assessment order sought to be revised was neither erroneous or nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, even if one of the conditions is absent, either the order of the ITO is erroneous o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The scheme of the Act is to levy and collect tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this task is entrusted to the Revenue of the ITO, the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
