TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the PCIT to prima facie doubt the genuineness of such transactions. Here it is relevant to note that tax liability in that case would be about Rs. 18,00,000/- Thus, though it is true, by virtue of Explanation-2 added to Section 263 of the Act, a presumption exists as to the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, it does not empower the Commissioner of Income Tax to exercise revisional powers in each and every case. We find the present is not a fit case to offer interference. No substantial question of law is seen to exist in the context of tax dispute not exceeding Rs. 18,00,000/- that may otherwise exist. Under the prevailing litigation policy of the Union Government, such a dispute may not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id amount was received through banking channel. 4. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has opined, no detailed enquiries were made by the assessing officer as to the source of Rs. 80,00,000/- available to M/s Sanwaria Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. It is true, the observations made by the Principal Commissioner are generally relevant considerations. What may have however completely missed the attention of the PCIT is, in any case, other than the hypothetical circumstance of such transactions being disbelieved, if due enquiry being made, no cogent material existed before the PCIT to prima facie doubt the genuineness of such transactions. Here it is relevant to note that tax liability in that case would be about Rs. 18,00,000/- 5. Thus, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer which rendered the order erroneous and which also simultaneously caused prejudice to the revenue. Merely because the expectations of the Revisional Commissioner are purportedly not met, it should not, in our opinion, necessarily trigger revisional action under Section 263 of the Act in every case. The Ld. CIT has of so invoked provisions of section 263 including explanation 2 (a) which is effective from 01.06.2015 and it cannot be applied in the current assessment year. Hence, the Ld. CIT's reference to explanation 2(a) does not support the case of the Revenue. This is not a case of non-inquiry, the AO has made inquiry and on the touchstone of the aforesaid case laws, we find that the Id. CIT's order cannot be su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
