AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same may kindly be quashed. 2. The ld. PCIT seriously erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Ac without recording a specific and categorical finding that the subjected assessment order passed u/s 144 dated 15-07-2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in absence of which the entire proceedings u/s 263 is vitiated. Therefore, the impugned order dated 26- 03-2022 u/s 263 of the Act kindly be quashed. 3. The assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 and the impugned direction, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record, hence the proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the Act and the impugned order dated 26-03-2022 deserves to be quashed. 4. The ld. PCIT s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earing, the Bench noted that there is delay of 9 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee had sent the appeal through Speed Post on 30-05-2022 to the Assistant Registrar office but it was received in the Assistant Registrar Office on 03-06-2022. He further submitted that this delay was not intentional but it is because of postal delay and the assessee and deposited the requisite appeal filing fee on 23-05-2022. Thus the delay in filing the appeal took place because of postal delay which should be condoned. To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such delay but prayed that the Court may decide the issue as deem it fit an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2 However, the ld. PCIT vide notice of hearing dated 24-02-2022 noted that the assessment order passed by the AO in assessee's case for the A.Y. 2017-18 is found to be erroneous to the interest of Revenue. The ld. PCIT proposed to modify the assessment order under the power vested to him u/s 263 of the Act and thus he allowed an opportunity to the assessee to show cause as to why the order passed u/s 143(3) on 15-07-2019 by the AO may not be revised u/s 263 of the Act in a suitable manner. The written submission filed by the assessee had been examined and duly considered by the ld. PCIT. The ld. PCIT noted that the assessee could not reasonably explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.17,86,000/- as made by him during the demonetization pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, to pass an order upon hearing the assessee and after an enquiry as is necessary, enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. The key words that are used by section 263 are that the order must be considered by the Commissioner to be "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue". This provision has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in several judgments to which it is now necessary to turn. In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83, the Supreme Court held that the provision "cannot be invoked to correct each and every t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282." The principles laid down by the courts are that the Learned CIT cannot invoke his powers of revision under section 263 if the Assessing Officer has conducted enquiries and applied his mind and has taken a possible view of the matter. If there was any enquiry and a possible view is taken, it would not give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. Possible view shall mean a issue, which is debatable and there could be more than one possible views. The consideration of the Commissioner as to whether an order is erroneous in so far it is pr....