TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court held that for purposes of exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be preceded by some minimal enquiry. In fact, if the Ld. PCIT is of the view that the AO did not undertake any enquiry, it becomes incumbent on him to conduct such enquiry. Nothing of the sort has been done by the Ld. PCIT in the case of the assessee before us. In Synergy Waste Management (P) Ltd. [ 2016 (6) TMI 23 - ITAT DELHI] is held that if an AO, acting in accordance with law, makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because according to him the order should have been writt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 143(3) was passed after proper satisfaction. 2. That the order dated 17.03.2021, passed u/s 263 of the Act is perverse, against the principles of natural justice, passed without, considering detailed submissions filed by the appellant before the Ld. CIT. 3. That assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263, presuming, and merely on basis of audit objection and lack of enquiry by the AO is bad in law, ignoring the fact that the order u/s 143(3) dated 07.12.2018 was passed by the Ld. AO, seeking details/information as desired to his satisfaction. 3. The appeal was filed late by 114 days. Vide application dated 07.07.2021 the assessee sought condonation of delay in view of Hon ble Supreme Court s order dated 27.04.2021 in Miscellaneous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in section 263 of the Act by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. He supported the order of Ld. PCIT and cited a number of decisions in support thereof. 6. We have considered carefully the submission of the parties; perused the record as also the decisions relied upon by the parties. It is revealed from the assessment order that the Ld. AO was well aware that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, he issued and served upon the assessee notice under section 143(2) to produce evidence in support of its return. Thereafter, the Ld. AO sent to the assessee notice under section 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire of 38 questions (copy at page 43-47 of Paper Book) to which the assessee f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y at page 5-40 of the Paper Book) but not a word thereupon has been mentioned by the Ld. PCIT. This is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Delhi) wherein the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court held that for purposes of exercising jurisdiction under section 263 the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be preceded by some minimal enquiry. In fact, if the Ld. PCIT is of the view that the AO did not undertake any enquiry, it becomes incumbent on him to conduct such enquiry. Nothing of the sort has been done by the Ld. PCIT in the case of the assessee before us. 8. In Synergy Waste Man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
