TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce in all these appeals the assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction, these appeals are being disposed off by a common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. First of all, we would dispose of applications dated 04.02.2019 & 13.02.2019 moved by one Shri S.K. Srivastava, CIT (A)-I, Nodia (hereinafter referred to as 'Applicant') to be impleaded as necessary party in these appeals. During appellate proceedings to dispose off these applications, interim order dated 30.05.2019 was passed by the Bench framing following question to be decided before proceeding with the present appeals :- "as to whether presence of applicant, Shri S.K. Srivastava, in the present appeals is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the controversy at hand challenging the impugned order of Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 5. To decide the aforesaid question, Respondent/Revenue, already being represented through Ld. CIT DR, Shri J.K. Mishra to defend the interest of the Revenue as well as appellant were called upon to file parawise reply to the applications who have filed the same which is part and parcel of the judicial file. 6. Respondent/Rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill now address the present appeal. 10. The basis for the entire assessment proceedings and assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT are based upon the complaints made by Shri S.K. Srivastava. It would not be out of place to refer to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 01.03.2013 in an Interim Order in Appeal [C] No. 1 of 2013 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed with regard to Shri S.K. Srivastava as under: "No communication addressed by the petitioners qua any issue should be given any cognizance or taken into consideration and further the petitioner should not be entrusted any work in the department as it may affect the public at large..........." 11. In spite of these binding observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the PCIT has acted upon in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Be that as it may, assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, the PCIT issued show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act for A.Ys 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09. The sum and substance of the notices for each A.Y is the same and it would suffice to refer to the show cause notice for A.Y 2006-07 which reads as under: Show cause notice u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etails of travels to countries, dates and flight nos. of departure and arrival, details of expenses incurred for stay, boarding and lodging etc. were not produced during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. That It is seen from the assessment order of Shri Abhisar Sharma, your spouse in A. Y.2006-07 made on 28.03.2014 that the foreign visits have never been denied by you and since there is no evidence to establish that expenditure incurred in foreign visits for the said assessment year was actually financed by your husband Shri Abhisar Sharma who is a separate assessee with different PAN, addition on account of unexplained expenditure incurred due to such foreign visits has been made of an amount of Rs. 7,51,786/- on substantive and protective basis, since neither Shri Abhisar Sharma nor the assessee has submitted any details whether he funded foreign trips of his wife or not as such 50% of such amount of Rs. 3,75,893/- has been assessed as substantive and the balance amount of Rs. 3,75,893/- is to be assessed on protective basis, as Rs. 3,75,893/- is to be substantively assessed in your hands i.e. Ms. Shumana Sen (PAN AMQPS5036G) who is separately assessed in the A.Y.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment year had escaped assessment and the same had on being challenged before Hon'ble Delhi High Court been upheld by Order dt. 19.10.2012. Thus, it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to inquire into the correctness or otherwise of the grounds based upon which assessments were reopened. But the Assessing Officer has failed to inquire into the correctness of those grounds based upon which it was concluded that an income exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/- had escaped assessment in each of the assessment years. In view of that there is both error and prejudice caused to the revenue in so much as tax on income in excess of Rs. 1,00,000/- in each of year has escaped tax and hence assessments are liable to be set aside and to be done de-novo as per law. 3. That the complainant in your case was not allowed to cross-examine you and your witnesses as per facts on record during course of such assessment proceedings while on the other hand the A. O. has recorded the statement of your spouse Shri Abhisar Sharma at your residence but similar opportunity was not offered to the complainant for cross examination. 4. That It is seen from the assessment order of Shri Abhisar S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot have been accepted by the Assessing Officer without weighing the relative merit of version of the each of the witnesses examined in the case. 7. That, you failed to bring any evidence on record that "yearly vacation abroad with family was part of salary package of Sri Abhisar Sharma and similar perquisites were allowed to other employees as well" and M/s NDTV Ltd. has categorically declined vide its letter dated 25.02/12.03.2013 to have ever provided any such perquisite *to your spouse Sri Abhisar Sharma or any other employee and hence the claim on your part in CWP No.-1373 of 2011 of the Delhi High Court appears to be incorrect. 8. That, employment contract of Sri Abhisar Sharma was not examined and considered by the A.O. that the passport was neither produced before the A. O. for verification nor examined by him and the details of expenditure incurred in course of foreign visits were also not examined. Thus, considering the above, the undersigned is of the opinion that the said assessment order dated 31.3.2013 in your case is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as such since, no proper enquiry has been conducted and no proper law has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the statutory provisions u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, the judicial views taken and rulings given on the relevant issues. On examination of assessment records for Assessment Year 2005-06 to A.Y, 2008-09 in the case of the assessee and on perusal of reports of assessing officer & Additional Commissioner vis-a-vis replies submitted by the assessee, the following new facts emerge which have not been looked into, examined and considered by the A.O. in the orders under review : (14)(A) The AO in the assessee's case has made assessments u/s 148/143(3) for A.Y.s 2005- 06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09, by accepting the returned income without conducting proper enquiries and without appreciating the issues raised in the satisfaction for assuming jurisdiction U/s 147/148 of I.T. Act, 1961 which was challenged by the assessee before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CWP No-4022 of 2012 titled as "Shumana Sen vs. CIT Delhi XIV & Ors," and vide judgment dt. 19.10.2012 stood upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and was accepted by the assessee and has attained finality and unless it was proved by the assessee beyond reasonable doubts that the content and issues of law involved in the satisfact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E) The assessee has failed to bring any evidence on record that yearly vacation abroad with family was part of the salary package of her spouse, Sri Abhisar Sharma and similar perquisites were allowed to other employees as well and M/s NDTV Ltd. has categorically declined vide its letter dated 25.02/12.03.2013 to have ever provided any such perquisite to her spouse, Shri Abhisar Sharma or any other employee and hence the claim on her part in CWP No.-1373 of 2011 of the Delhi High Court appears to be incorrect. The employment contract of Sri Abhisar Sharma was not examined and considered by the A.O. and the passport was neither produced before the A.O. for verification nor examined and the details of expenditure incurred in course of foreign visits were also not examined. 14(F) During the assessment proceedings of assesse's spouse (Sh. Abhisar Sharma), his A.O. was not provided any evidence either by the assessee's spouse or the witnesses examined by the assessee's spouse, to support his claim about receipt of perquisites from the employer/s of assessee's spouse being taxable u/s 17(2)/Form 12BA and Rule 26A/Form-16 regarding assessee's foreign trip to Europe with her spous....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f assessee's claims and against the stand taken by the complainant though the same was specifically and statutorily directed. 14(I) Since above stated facts are fresh & new arising during assessment proceedings, but A.O.. did not conduct any inquiry to find out veracity of such facts, hence the issues arising out of these facts are not the subject matter of appeal filed by Assessee for A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2008-09. 14(J) A.O. failed to conduct proper inquiry and failed to apply proper law leading to said assessment orders being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and in support, the following case laws exist in support of necessary action u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 against the assessment orders passed u/s 147/143(3) for A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2008- 09 in this case: (1) Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84 (2) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 (3) Swarup Vegetable Products Industrial Ltd, 22 CIT(AIL) 187 ITR 412 (4) CIT Vs Eastern Medikit Ltd. (Del) 58 DTR 265; 337 ITR 56. 15. As against the above noted findings, It is observed from the written submissions made by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y been raised in show cause notices issued during the tenure of the predecessors of the undersigned, based upon reports of the lower authorities, much before the undersigned took over this additional charge of PCIT-22, Delhi on 30.01.2015 and took up the matter in view of the expiry of the time bar of 31.03.2015 in this case. Needless to mention here the plethora of judgements against raising such technical objections with a specific purpose of stalling the proceedings and to divert the focus from substance to the form, Although the issues involved in these proceedings u/s 263, in the case of the assessee, have nothing to do with the period of her service tenure under the charge of the undersigned that the assessee has alluded to, in the " Preliminary Objections", still the " Preliminary Objections" raised by the assessee at the time of conclusion of proceedings have been considered, deliberated upon and kept in mind while adjudicating on the main issues discussed hereafter only to ensure a clinical analysis of material available on record. Having observed thus, these orders are now being passed with full awareness of the objections raised by the assessee and with full consciousnes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lication of law. violating the principles of natural justice and without application of mind which is unsustainable in law as demonstrated in the paras above Therefore, errors have crept into the order as pointed out in the notice u/s 263 which have caused prejudice to the interests of revenue. In the case of CIT vs. Shree Manjuathesware Trading Products and Comphor Works, report in (1988) 231 ITR 53, it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the revisionary power conferred on the Commissioner of Income Tax is of wide amplitude. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT(1973) 88 ITR 232 has held that the Commissioner may consider an order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous not only if there is some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact but also where it is a stereotyped order which simply accepts what the assessee has stated in his return and fails to make inquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case and it is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further inquiries before cancelling the assessment order of Assessing Officer. The facts of the present case, if judged on the touchstone of above legal position propoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this extent it is held that orders u/s 147/143(3) dated 31.03.2013 for A.Y.s 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 of the A O. in this case are erroneous and also pic;ud!cm! m the interest of the revenue and" are liable to Te set-aside Accordingly in the exercise of revisionary power u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment orders of A.Y.s 2005-06. 2006-07, 2007 08 S 2008-09 completed u/s 147/143(3) on 31.03.2013 are hereby cancelled and restored to the Assessing Officer to make assessments denovo after examining the entirety of the issues considered in this revision order u/s 263 in assessee's case after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The A.O. is directed to make all necessary inquiries with the concerned agencies to ensure that all the issues which are subject matter of this revision order u/s 263 as per the findings given in paras-(14)(A) to (14)(J) above, are properly examined vis -a-vis the evidences collected and required to be collected, the claims made by the assessee regarding such evidences and the position of law, so as to ensure that the errors pointed out in this order and the prejudices erased to revenue as per this order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TEP and letter of CIT, Delhi-XlV. New Delhi in the case of Mrs. Sumana Sen an existing assessee in this charge to take necessary action as per applicable law. The complainant being an IRS officer of 1087 batch and holding the rank of Commissioner of Income Tax subsequently also provided a copy of the letter dated 17/10/2011 written by Mrs. Sumana Sen to the Chairperson, Complaint Committee on Sexual Harassment, New Delhi wherein also Mrs. Sumana Sen has admitted that she had travelled abroad several times at the time of her husband's employment with M/s NDTV Ltd. before, during and after her stint in Circle-13(1). New Delhi. Pursuant to the receipt of the copy of the TEP the matter was independently examined in exercise of independent quasijudicial discretion by the undersigned. It was found that the Returns of Income of Mrs. Sumana Sen an existing assessee in this office for the relevant period i.e. A.Y. 2004-2005, 2005- 2006, 2006-200 7, 200 7-2008 & 2008- 2009 relevant for F. Y. 2003- 2004, 2004- 2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 Si 2007-2008 does not disclose in any manner whatsoever the details and other particulars of her foreign travelling and the expenditure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... her Spouse Sh. Abhisar Sharma has not made any mention oj the above refer red to statutory documents which are mandatorily to be submitted by the concerned assessee nor has included any of these documents either with the affidavit filed by her before Hon'ble Delhi High Court nor with official letter dated 17/10 2011. In view of the above facts there is an admitted position about expenditure incurred on foreign travels of the assessee and her family during the period F.Y. 2003-2004 to F. Y. 2007-2003. The sources of expenditure incurred by the assessee on her foreign travels during the above mentioned period required to be verified to ascertain the correct and full tax payable by the assessee on her taxable income. In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove and the material available on the record of this office. I have reasons to believe that income far in excess of the limit prescribed in law and much more than the limit of Rs. One lakh prescribed in section 149/1 Kb) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 has escaped assessment diming A. Y. 2005-2006,2006-2007, 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 and to bring the escaped income to tax, re-assessment proceedings are requi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterial time, the entire amount of expenditure incurred on yearly vacation abroad by Sh. Abhisar Sharma and Shumana Sen. paid by employer of Sh. Abhisar Sharma it/ 17 of the I T Act, 1961 being the income oj the assessee. 4 M/s NDTV Ltd. has also not included the expenditure incurred on vacation abroad of Ms Shumana Sen in the salary of Sh. Abhisar Sharma . and has not deducted any tax on that nor has included any perquisite in the Form of 16 issued by NDTV Ltd. to Sh. Abhisar Sharma and thereby it is clear that expenditure incurred on the vacation abroad of Ms Shumana Sen was not the salary of Sh. Abhisar Sharma but bribe and illegal gratification received by Ms. Shumana Sen ay DCIT Cir. 13(1), for favouring M/s NDTV Ltd. illegally." 17. The reopening vis a vis notices u/s 148 of the Act was challenged by the assessee before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of writ petition and the said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 19.10.2012 in WP(C) No. 4022/2012 CM Appeal 8436-8438/2012. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: "In the circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the submissions of the petitioner. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and source of such expenditure or utilization of sale proceeds received if any Photocopy of immovable property declared in your office for the relevant period" 18. In her reply, inter alia, the assessee referred to the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which have been mentioned by us elsewhere. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for information u/s 133(6) of the Act from NDTV Ltd in the case of Abhisar Sharma [spouse of the assessee]. The following information was called for: "Sh. Abhisar Sharma was employed by M/s NDTV Ltd. during October 2003 to October 2007, i.e. financial year 2003-04,2004- 05,2005-06,2006-07 and 2007-08. You are requested to provide the following information u/s 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 In the above mentioned financial years for the period October 2003 to Oct, 2007, there are five financial years involved i.e.2003- 04 to 2007-08, you are therefore required to provide authenticated copies of: 1. The employment contract of Sh. Abhisar Sharma with M/s NDTV Ltd. for this period i.e. from Oct. 2003 to Oct. 2007. 2. Copy of Form No. 16 issued to Sh. Abhisar Sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unaccounted and undisclosed income, expenditure and investment submitted by Shri S.K. Srivastava and detailed point wise reply was filed before the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, on 22.03.2013, in response to summons u/s 131 of the Act, statement of the assessee was recorded. The relevant portion reads as under: "In response to Summon u/s 131 of the l.T. Act, 1961, the asses see eel the ease on 25/3/2013 and statement on Oath was recorded. The relevant portion is as under:- "08. As per Tax evasion petition. Sh S.K Srivastava alleged that you have incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 3 Crores or more on such foreign travels during the financial year 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 and 200^-08, whether you have gone to foreign trip during the financial year 2004-05. 2005-06. 2006-07 and 2007-08. What is the source of the expenditure incurred, and how much expenditure you have actually incurred with documentary evidence? Ans: As per the allegation made by Sh. S.k Srivastava is concerned, the same is completely false, baseless and malicious. They are also unsubstantiated, without any evidence or any basis. 1 would like to point out here that Sh. S.K Srivastava ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve been provided. 0. 10 In your reply dated 11/03/2013, in para 1 you have replied that all such allegations made had been examined by the Vigilance directorate of the department as well as seniors and file had been closed pursuant to the same. So, have you any documentary evidence for this verification? Ans: I have no documents in my possession regarding the same However, as had been requested by my letter dated 11/03/2013. a copy of the report may be sought from the concerned authorities. Without prejudice to the same, it Is stated that these allegations have been withdrawn by the complainant as already been stated above by me and therefore have no bearing to the impugned assessment proceedings." 22. Proceeding further, the Assessing Officer issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to Shri Abhisar Sharma, husband of the assessee whose statement was recorded on oath on 29.03.2013. The relevant part of the statement reads as under: "Q No 7 As per Tax Evasion Petition, Sh. S.I< Srivastava alleged to Ms Shumana Sen H o Sh. Abhisar Sharma have incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 3 crores or more on such foreign travels during the financial year 2004-05, 2005....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had a balance of approx. Rs. 1,65,271 - in my account at that time. Boarding and lodging in U.K. was at my wife's Aunt place and in Ireland the boarding and lodging was through a package tour, made by travel agent The trip was for 7 to 10 days. 4. There was no foreign trip with family for the Asstt. Year. 2008-09 0.9. Ms Shuman Sen your wife has claimed in her writ Para3.43. page 17 and 18, a copy of affidavit submitted in Hon'ble Delhi High Court that her trip to Europe arose because of a yearly vacation abroad with family being part of salary package of Sh. Abhisar Sharma declared to be her spouse and an employee to M/s NDTV Ltd. in this context what do you want to say? Ans. 9. It has been correctly stated by my wife that foreign travel allowance was part of my salary package. The same is evident from the submissions made by me in my reply above in Q No. 8 " Copy of bank statement of Abhisar Sharma with Standard Bank also examined to verify the withdrawals for foreign trip." 23. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the allegation pertaining to her misdemeanor r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings in case of the assessee visa vis NDTV Ltd. c) . Information u/s 133(6) of IT Act, 1961 from ACIT Circle 47(1), New Delhi regarding investigations conducted in case of Abhisar Sharma and assessment order passed for AY.2005-06 by him. d) Statements recorded u/s 131 of IT Act,1961 of Sh. S.K. Srivastava, Sh. Abhisar Sharma and the assessee. e) Bank statements of Abhisar Sharma with Standard Chartered Bank and that of the assessee with Syndicate Bank were examined vis a vis these foreign trips. Bank statement with ICICI Bank (joint account of assessee with her husband) were examined. f ) Apart from it information u/s 133(6) was called from ACIT(Finance) O/o CCIT-I, New Delhi, ACIT(Personnel) O/o CCIT-I, New Delhi and M/s British Airways and same was obtained. g) Copies of passports of the assessee and Abhisar Sharma were examined for verification of these foreign Travels by undersigned and ACIT Circle 47(1), New Delhi 27. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiries, the Assessing Officer finally concluded as under; "As a result of above mentioned investigations conducted the following facts emerge:- a) . Sh. Abhisar Sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s effects was being processed by Vigilance Directorate of Income Tax Department against the assessee which has been closed as per details outlined in proceeding. paragraphs. The facts of the complaint were same and related foreign travels of the assessee w.r.t. M/s NDTV 1 td. k). The Assessing officer of Sh. Abhisar Sharma has made an addition for undisclosed perquisites in hands of Abhisar Sharma in AY. 2005-06 in regard to the two economy tickets and US $ 1000 received by him from M/s NDTV Ltd. 1) Thus, the reasons outlined in reopening of assessment do not stand proved in view of the employment contract provided by M/s NDTV Ltd. and other investigations conducted as elaborated above m). The statements recorded of Sh Abhisar Sharma u/s 131 of IT Act,1961 is separately being forwarded to ACIT Circle 47(1), New Delhi for information and action, as deemed fit. Sh. Abhisar Sharma in his statement and submissions before ACIT Circle 47(1), New Delhi has confirmed this fact that foreign travels were undertaken through his sources and savings and his wife and daughter accompanied him as family members. Reference is drawn to this letter dated 13/02/2013....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... able to establish that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus, where there are two possible views and the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views, no action to exercise powers of revision can arise, nor can revisional power be exercised for directing a fuller enquiry to find out if the view taken is erroneous. This power of revision can be exercised only where no enquiry, as required under the law, is done. It is not open to enquire in case of inadequate inquiry. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi, [2016] 71 taxmann.com 272 (Bombay). This view is further supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shri Prakash Bhagchand Khatri in Tax Appeal No. 177 with Tax Appeal No.178 of 2016, wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was seized with the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in upholding the order passed by the CIT under section 263 of the Act on merits and still storing the issue of allowability of deduction under section 54 of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous ". 32. The co-ordinate bench in the case of Technip UK Ltd, ITA No. 1116/DEL/2014 vide order dated 17.12.2018 has held as under: "62. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 has held that where it was discernible from record that the A.O has applied his mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: 63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537 has held as under: "We are thus of the opinion that the provisions of s. 263 of the Act, when read as a composite whole make it incumbent upon the CIT before exercising revisional powers to : (i) call for and examine the record, and (ii) give the assessee an opportunity of being he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee." 64. Since in the instant case the A.O after considering the various submissions made by the assessee from time to time and has taken a possible view, therefore, merely because the DIT does not agree with the opinion of the A.O, he cannot invoke the provisions of section 263 to substitute his own opinion. It has further been held in several decisions that when the A.O has made enquiry to his satisfaction and it is not a case of no enquiry and the DIT/CIT wants that the case could have been investigated/ probed in a particular manner, he cannot assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the assumption of jurisdiction by the DIT u/s 263 of the Act is not in accordance with law. We, therefore, quash the same and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed." 33. In yet another case, Jubilant Energy [P] Ltd ITA No. 3927/DEL/2016 order dated 04.07.2018, the co-ordinate bench under similar facts and circumstances, has held as under: "19. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 has held as under: "The power of suo motu revision under subsection (1) is in the nature of superv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. It may be said in such a case that in the opinion of the Commissioner the order in question is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. But that by itself will not be enough to vest the Commissioner with the power of suo motu revision because the first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent. Similarly, if an order is erroneous but not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, then also the power of suo motu revision cannot be exercised. Any and every erroneous order cannot be the subject-matter of revision because the second requirement also must be fulfilled. There must be some prima facie material on record to show that tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed. We, therefore, hold that in order to exercise power under sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 263 of the Act were not applicable to the instant case and, therefore, the commissioner was not justified in setting aside the assessment order." 34. The ld. DR, in his written submissions, has relied upon the judgment dated 20.07.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Braham Dev Gupta 907 of 2017. We find that the facts of the case in hand are not even remotely related to the facts of this case. 35. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BSES Rajadhani Power Ltd 399 ITR 228 is again distinguishable on facts as in that case, the Assessing Officer did not go into the issue with respect to whole claim of deprecation and that was considered as an error justifying the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Whereas the facts of the case, as discussed hereinabove, clearly show that the reasons on which the PCIT assumed jurisdiction are the very reasons for reopening the assessment and the Assessing Officer has not only made thorough enquiry, but has also done detailed investigative work by calling for information u/s 133(6) of the Act from various parties mentioned elsewhere. 36. Similar....