AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1081
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT cannot travel beyond the reasons given by him for revision in the show-cause notice without appreciating that the power of revision under Section 263 of the I.T. Act is not contingent on the giving of a notice to show cause ? (b) Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in holding that in the revision proceedings the CIT cannot travel beyond the reasons given by him for revision in the show-cause notice without appreciating the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (384 ITR 200) (2016) wherein it was clearly held by the Apex Court that there is nothing in Section 263 to make the CIT confine himself to the terms of show cause notice ?" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act. It is only this finding of ITAT which is impugned in this Appeal. On the other two points, revenue has accepted the findings of ITAT that the Order under Section 263 was not warranted. 6. Mr. Suresh Kumar submitted that Apex Court in its Judgment dated 11th May, 2016 (after the impugned order was pronounced by ITAT) in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai v. Amitabh Bachchan 2016(69) taxmann.com 170 (SC), has held that the provisions of Section 263 does not warrant any notice to be issued and what is required is only to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard before reaching his decision and not before commencing the enquiry. Mr. Suresh Kumar submitted that therefore, the ITAT has erred in setting aside the Order of CIT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority under the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is the basic precondition for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Both are twin conditions that have to be conjointly present. Once such satisfaction is reached, jurisdiction to exercise the power would be available subject to observance of the principles of natural justice which is implicit in the requirement cast by the Section to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard. It is in the context of the above position that this Court has repeatedly held that unlike the power of reopening an assessment under Section 147 of the Act, the power of revision under Section 263 is not contingent on the giving of a notice to show cause. In fact,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce is contemplated by Section 33-B. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner to proceed under Section 33-B is not dependent on the fulfilment of any condition precedent. All that he is required to do before reaching his decision and not before commencing the enquiry, he must give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and make or cause to make such enquiry as he deems necessary. Those requirements have nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. They pertain to the region of natural justice. Breach of the principles of natural justice may affect the legality of the order made but that does not affect the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. At present we are not called upon to consider whether the order made by the Commissioner is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary. But there is nothing in the section (Section 263) to raise the said notice to the status of a mandatory show cause notice affecting the initiation of the exercise in the absence thereof or to require the C.I.T. to confine himself to the terms of the notice and foreclosing consideration of any other issue or question of fact. This is not the purport of Section 263. Of course, there can be no dispute that while the C.I.T. is free to exercise his jurisdiction on consideration of all relevant facts, a full opportunity to controvert the same and to explain the circumstances surrounding such facts, as may be considere....