TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 400
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hould have done before passing the original assessment order u/s 143(3) on 14.03.2016. It has been held by the Ld. Pr.CIT that the original assessment order is erroneous inasmuch as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Vide the impugned order, the Ld. Pr. CIT has cancelled original assessment and has directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment after making proper inquiries with respect to certain suspicious transactions relating to long term capital gains on shares. 2.0 Brief facts of the case are that in this case the return of income was filed declaring total income at Rs. 5,55,100/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and vide order dated 14.03.2016, the Assessing Officer accepted the returned income whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner, the order has been passed without making any inquiries or verification which should have been made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Pr.CIT was of the opinion that since the Assessing Officer had not carried out the investigation/inquiry which he should have, the order is to be deemed to be erroneous inasmuch as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld. Pr.CIT proceeded to cancel the assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to frame fresh assessment after conducting appropriate inquiry. Aggrieved by this order of the Ld. Pr.CIT, the assessee is now in appeal before the ITAT. 3.0 The Ld. AR submitted that it is not the case of the Ld. Pr.CIT that no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer during the course....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iance on the following case laws to support her contention that the action of the Ld. Pr.CIT in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act was justified:- 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT Supreme Court 2000, 109 Taxman 66 2. CIT vs. Ashok Logani, Delhi High Court, 2011, 11 taxmann.com 208 3. Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT, ITAT Delhi, 2017, ITA No. 2158/Del/2017 4. Surya Financial Services Ltd. vs. PCIT, ITAT Delhi 2018, 2018-TIOL-74-ITAT-DEL 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. From the records produced before us, it is very much evident that the Assessing Officer had made detailed inquiries regarding the assessee's claim of long term capital gain and, thereaft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oes not agree with the contentions of the assessee. The Ld. Pr.CIT has merely remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer without making any inquiry himself. It is apparent that no independent inquiries have been made by the Ld. Pr.CIT although it was incumbent upon him to make such inquiry so as to reach the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5.2 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.705/2017 has categorically held that for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and reaching a conclusion that the order is erroneous in so far as being prejudicial to the interest of the reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income Tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in (2010) reported in 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) has held that if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would by itself not give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order u/s 263 of the Act merely because the Commissioner had a different opinion in the matter. It is a settled law that the Ld. Pr.CIT cannot pass the order u/s 263 on the ground that thorough inquiry should have been made by the Assessing Officer. 5.6 Although, there has been an amendment in the provisions of section 263 of the Act by which Explanation 2 has been inserted w.e.f. 1.6.2015 but the same does not give unfettered powers to the Commissioner to assume jurisdiction under section 263 to revise every order of the Assessing Off....