Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Principal Commissioner was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the Assessing Officer allowed deduction on account of unrealized gain on mutual fund while computing book profit under section 115JB without making proper enquiry.
Analysis: The assessment record did not show that the Assessing Officer made any enquiry on the allowability of the claim while completing the assessment. The Principal Commissioner specifically recorded that the allowance of the deduction was made without application of mind and without verification, and the assessee could not rebut that factual finding. In such a situation, the assessment order is treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The challenge on merits of the deduction was held to be irrelevant at this stage because the revisionary order did not finally decide the allowability of the claim and only directed fresh examination in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The revision under section 263 was valid and the assessee's contention failed.
Ratio Decidendi: An assessment order passed without making enquiries or verifications that should have been made, and thereby allowing a claim without proper examination, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and is amenable to revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.