TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal sets aside revision order for lack of penalty mention, emphasizes Assessing Officer's discretionary power.</h1> <h3>Smt. Vandana Sharad Dhaktode, Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-I Thane.</h3> Smt. Vandana Sharad Dhaktode, Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-I Thane. - TMI Issues:Challenge to validity of revision order passed by CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2009-10.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of Revision OrderThe appeal challenged the revision order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT initiated proceedings to verify an amount found credited in the assessee's capital account. The CIT set aside the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for not initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the credited amount. The appellant argued that the CIT revised the order on grounds not mentioned in the notice, citing a Tribunal decision. The appellant further contended that the AO's discretionary power regarding penalty proceedings cannot be compelled by the CIT, referencing another Tribunal decision. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the CIT did not issue a revision notice regarding penalty proceedings, making it not subject to revision. The Tribunal also highlighted the AO's discretion in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and concluded that the CIT cannot direct the AO to change his decision through a revision order. The Tribunal quashed the revision order based on these grounds.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the revision order passed by the CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2009-10. The decision was based on the lack of mention of penalty proceedings in the revision notice and the AO's discretionary power in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT cannot compel the AO to change his decision through a revision order, ultimately leading to the quashing of the revision order.
TaxTMI 