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 exercising revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the assessee's claim of interest on delayed TDS payment, and whether prior approval under section 153D barred such revision.
Analysis: The claim of interest on late deposit of TDS was treated as not allowable as business expenditure, and the assessment order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The objection based on prior approval under section 153D was rejected because the approval had been granted by the Joint Commissioner, whereas the revisional power under section 263 vests in the Principal Commissioner or higher authority. The cited precedent was held inapplicable on the facts, and no further deep enquiry was found necessary for invoking revision.
Conclusion: The revision under section 263 was validly exercised, and the assessee's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The revisional order was sustained and the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 may be exercised by the competent Commissioner notwithstanding prior approval at the assessment stage under section 153D, if the statutory revisional authority is different and the approval does not foreclose correction of the error.