2022 (4) TMI 389

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment was completed at nil income. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (hereinafter referred as Ld. Revisional Authority) invoked provisions of 263 of the Act and observed in para 7 of its impugned order dated 26.03.2019 as under:- "7. On perusal of assessment order, records available and reply of the assessee it is observed that the AO has passed the order without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. These are as follows: a) Reasonableness of sums paid to specified persons has not been explained satisfactorily with evidence. b) The case of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachan (2016) is not applicable in this case. c) No evidence of submission of Form 10 has been submitted. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uthority had a possible different view the same was not sufficient for interference by invoking provisions of Section 263 of the Act. In this context, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 2016, 384 ITR 200 (SC) was relied. 3.1. The Ld. DR defended the order of Ld. Revisional Authority on tax in law being correct. 4. Appreciating the arguments submitted and material available on record, it can be observed that a limited scrutiny notice was issued to the assessee on 26.07.2016 to which reply was filed on 05.08.2016 and this reply which is on paper book at page No. 3 gives detail of the transaction of the Trust with specified persons. It was informed to the Ld. AO that payment Som Dutt Tyagi, of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s. 263 of the Act on the basis of letter written by JCIT. However the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous on face of it. There was sufficient and exhaustive inquiry on the issues by the Ld. AO and merely because the inquiry made were not considered satisfactory on higher or different parameters, the assessment order cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue requiring exercise of Revisional powers. There is also nothing in the order of Ld. AO which can be considered to set a bad trend or pattern for similar assessments so to be taken as prejudicial to the interest of revenue administration. 6. Furthermore, the settled position of law is that for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, the....