TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Commissioner of Income Tax ('CIT') under Section 263 of the Act which in turn set aside the assessment order dated 31st October 2011 passed by the Assessing Officer ('AO') under Section 143 (3) of the Act and required the assessment proceedings to be undertaken afresh. 3. The Assessee filed its return of income for the AY in question on 30th September 2009, declaring income as Nil. The Assessee, being a listed company engaged in the business of marketing of household products, declared dividend income of Rs. 14,51,289/- which was exempt from tax. The Assessee had not made any disallowance in relation to such income under Section 14A of the Act. 4. After picking up the Assessee's return for scrutiny, the AO completed the assessment un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etails of the facts on the basis of which 263 proceedings have been initiated, have been requested by the assessee to be given to him for detailed reply after due verification. It is observed that request of the assessee is valid and may be acceded to. Accordingly A.O. is directed to provide the details of the facts on the basis of which 263, proceedings have been initiated and then verify the reply of the assessee on the same issue. In view of the above, Order dated 31.10.2011 passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act is set aside u/s 263 of the I.T. Act with the specific direction to the A.O to provide the basis/reasons for initiations of proceedings *u/s:263 of the I. T Act to the assessee, to verify the submission of the assessee on the issue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....legal requirements of Section 263 of the Act. It was not enough for the CIT to reproduce the SCN, the reply thereto and give the conclusion. The impugned order of the CIT gives no reasons for the conclusion that the assessment order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 10. The CIT appears to have proceeded under the misconception that the AO could be "directed to provide the details of the facts on the basis of which 263 proceedings have been initiated and then verify the reply of the assessee on the same issue." The exercise under Section 263 of the Act could not have been 'outsourced' by the CIT to the AO. The CIT had himself to undertake a minimal enquiry and give reasons for coming to the conclusion ....