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 Quashes CIT's Jurisdiction Order Under Section 263, Upholds AO's Evaluation</h1> <h3>Swasti Realinfra Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-10 (4), Kolkata.</h3> Swasti Realinfra Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-10 (4), Kolkata. - TMI Issues:Challenge to jurisdiction exercised by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the order of Ld. Pr. CIT for AY 2012-13, challenging the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The case involved scrutiny of the return of income, assessment orders, and revision by the Ld. Pr. CIT. The Ld. Pr. CIT set aside the assessment order for a de novo assessment due to lack of detailed investigation into the investment by shareholders and share premium. The assessee argued that the AO had conducted a thorough examination, including issuing notices u/s. 133(6) and summon u/s. 131, verifying identity and creditworthiness of investors. The Ld. Pr. CIT revised the assessment order again, citing lack of enquiry by the AO, leading to a show cause notice. The Ld. AR contended that the revisionary jurisdiction was misapplied, citing precedents and emphasizing the detailed findings in the initial assessment order.The Ld. DR supported the Ld. Pr. CIT's order, stating no prejudice to the assessee due to the revision. The Tribunal analyzed the records, appellate order, and cited decisions. It noted that the AO had conducted a detailed examination in the first assessment, issuing necessary notices and verifying transactions. The AO's findings indicated proper verification of investments and compliance with directions. The Tribunal found the Ld. Pr. CIT's exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 invalid, aligning with previous decisions and the High Court's ruling. The Tribunal quashed the Ld. Pr. CIT's second revision, upholding the initial assessment order based on the AO's thorough enquiry and compliance with directions.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the similarity of facts with previous cases and the correctness of the AO's actions in the initial assessment. The Tribunal's decision was based on the proper verification conducted by the AO and the lack of valid grounds for the Ld. Pr. CIT's revision under section 263. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the Ld. Pr. CIT's order was quashed, maintaining the validity of the initial assessment order.
TaxTMI 