TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1491
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally on 17.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 4,52,68,500/- which was revised on 28.02.2018 showing same income. The return was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 5. After perusing the details/documents and after making necessary enquiries, assessment was completed on 26.12.2018 at Rs. 4,55,45,110/-. Assuming the powers conferred upon him by provisions of section 263 of the Act, the PCIT issued notice u/s. 28.03.2021 which reads as under: 6. In light of the aforementioned reasons given by the ld. PCIT in his notice initiating proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act, let us now consider the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings. 7. Vide notice dated 10.10.2018, the Assessing Officer, inter alia, asked the assessee to furnish details of sundry creditors, trade payables, current liabilities alongwith complete postal address and PAN of such parties having outstanding balance of Rs. 5 lakhs or more with further details relating to interest payment and TDS thereon. This notice is placed at pages 9 to 11 of the paper book. 8. Vide reply date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n cannot 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." 14. We find that 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. 15. We further find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537 has held as under: "63. 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 heard and thereafter to make or cause to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary. It is only on fulfillment of these twin conditions that the CIT may pass an order exercising his power ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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." 16. 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 sub-section (1) is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist. Two circumstances must exist to enable the Commissioner to exercise power of revision under this sub-section, viz., (i) the order is erroneous; (ii) by virtue of the order being erroneous prejudice has been caused to the interests of the Revenue. It has, therefore, to be conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at 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 must be material before the Commissioner to consider that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We have already held what is erroneous. It must be an order which is not in accordance with the law or which has been passed by the Income-tax Officer without making any enquiry in undue haste. We have also....