AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 16.03.2024 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter in short "AY") 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2018-19. The common issue is raised in these appeals, hence, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the purpose of adjudication, facts from AY 2014-15 have been culled out, wherein the grounds raised by the assessee are as under: "1. That the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT is erroneous on the facts and the merits of the case and provisions of Law as well and hence requires to be quashed. 2. That the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in passing an order u/s.263 without adhering to the principles of natural justice, proven by the fact that the appellant was not granted sufficient time to respond to the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee on 22.03.2018 and as a result, the assessment for the above years were reopened and subsequently after appropriate inquiries made through issue of multiple notices u/s.142(1), the assessment orders were finally concluded on 30.03.2022 u/s.147, arriving at a taxable income as under: Assessee: Perinba Raja Ramesh AY Impugned order Date of order Addition Rs. 2014-15 147 rws 143(3) 30-03-2022 10,33,940/- 2015-16 147 rws 143(3) 30-03-2022 12,08,335/- 2016-17 147 rws 143(3) 30-03-2022 13,07,031/- 2018-19 147 rws 143(3) 30-03-2022 - Total 35,49,306/- Assessee: PaulpandianUthamraj Winston: AY Impugned order Date of order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....capital under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act and revise the assessment orders passed in respect of above years. 6. The ld. AR contended that if only the enquiries were undertaken by the Pr. CIT, either on his own or cause such enquiries before passing the order u/s.263, the truth would have gotten unraveled and this unnecessary torment unleashed on the assessee could have been avoided. Therefore, it is evident that it is only the order u/s.263 which is erroneous, since it had failed to follow the principles ordained under the provisions of Section 263, which permits such authority to classify an order to be erroneous, unless an enquiry is conducted by such revisionary authority. 7. Further, according to the ld.AR, the revisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quiry as he deems necessary before passing such order. It can be considered common ground that any accusation has to be backed by proper enquiries and evidence before drawing such conclusion. 10. In the case under consideration, when the ld.Pr. CIT has formed an opinion that it is a case of lack of enquiry, directing the AO to undertake such enquiry once again is rather based on "reason to suspect" and not "reason to believe". Therefore, the opinion formed by the ld.Pr. CIT without undertaking enquiry or causing such an enquiry on his own, before passing the order u/s.263 is grossly inappropriate. 11. The ld. AR cited the decision held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Earth Minerals Co. Ltd. [2024] 162 taxmann.co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... kindly be dismissed. Therefore, the assessment order dated 30/3/2022 deserves revision u/s.263 of the Act. 14. We have heard both the contentions perused the records and gone through the orders of the authorities. The facts are not repeated for the sake of brevity. The solitary issue which is common to all the eight appeals that needs to be examined is with regard to the correctness of the ld.PCIT's action in invoking Section 263 of the Act and interfering with the orders of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer classifying it to be erroneous inasmuch as prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, thereby setting aside the order with a direction to the Assessing Officer to carry out necessary enquires and verification in connection wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the ld. Pr. CIT cannot just label it as erroneous without doing further enquiry by himself. In the action taken by the ld.Pr. CIT to revise the eight assessment orders, there is not even an iota of proof having undertaken any inquiry before concluding the orders to be erroneous. Moreover, it is apparent from the period of time made available to the assessee to respond to the notice under Section 263, and the conclusion drawn that the ld. Pr. CIT passed the orders in a hurried and mechanical manner without proper application of mind. 19. The decision cited by the Ld. AR in the case of Pr. CIT v. Earth Minerals Co. (supra.) rallies squarely in favour of the assessee and in view of the foregoing discussions, we conclude that the issue un....