TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax validly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to revise the assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that the assessing officer had not examined or verified the assessee's claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The assessment record shows that the assessing officer issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 calling for details of exemptions claimed including the claim under Section 54, and the assessee uploaded detailed replies and supporting conveyance deeds which are on record prior to completion of the assessment under Section 143(3). Precedents of the Calcutta High Court (PCIT v. Kesoram Industries Limited and PCIT v. Britannia Industries Limited) were applied, holding that Section 263 cannot be invoked where the assessing officer has in fact made enquiries and applied mind to the issue or where two reasonable views are possible; mere disagreement by the Commissioner does not render an order erroneous and prejudicial. The Principal Commissioner recorded that the AO had not examined the claim, but the documentary record and the assessment proceedings demonstrate that the claim was addressed before the AO completed assessment; accordingly the statutory prerequisites for valid exercise of Section 263 jurisdiction are not satisfied.
Conclusion: The exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is invalid; the order passed under Section 263 is quashed and the assessee's appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
