TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....That on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT was not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 even though the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and the order u/s 143(3) was passed after proper satisfaction. 2. That the order dated 17.03.2021, passed u/s 263 of the Act is perverse, against the principles of natural justice, passed without, considering detailed submissions filed by the appellant before the Ld. CIT. 3. That assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263, presuming, and merely on basis of audit objection and lack of enquiry by the AO is bad in law, ignoring the fact that the order u/s 143(3) dated 07.12.2018 was passed by the Ld. AO, seeking details/information as desired t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... several decisions and emphatically relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Shreeji Prints (P) Ltd. (2021) 130 taxmann.com 294 (SC). 5. The Ld. DR drew our attention to Explanation 2 inserted in section 263 of the Act by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. He supported the order of Ld. PCIT and cited a number of decisions in support thereof. 6. We have considered carefully the submission of the parties; perused the record as also the decisions relied upon by the parties. It is revealed from the assessment order that the Ld. AO was well aware that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, he issued and served upon the assessee notice under section 143(2) to produce evidence in support ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed under section 263 of the Act it is observed that in the show cause notice he raised certain issues and made observations to which the assessee gave reply in seriatim followed by legal submissions (copy at page 5-40 of the Paper Book) but not a word thereupon has been mentioned by the Ld. PCIT. This is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that for purposes of exercising jurisdiction under section 263 the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be preceded by some minimal enquiry. In fact, if the Ld. PCIT is of the view that th....