TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 1495
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the various grounds of appeal is against the invalid exercise of jurisdiction by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessment framed is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessment in this case was framed vide order dated 18.09.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act accepting returned income of Rs. 2,57, 850/-. Thereafter, the Ld. PCIT upon perusal of the assessment order/ assessment record observed that the AO has failed to assess the income correctly and accordingly the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld. PCIT issued show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act as to why the order passed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../129/2022, IA No. GA/1/2022; GA/2/2022 dated 22.11.2022 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that initiation of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act was based on a proposal given by the AO and not at the behest of the Ld. PCIT. The second plea of the assessee was that it is not the case of no enquiry but a case of inadequate enquiry and the Ld. A.R. in order to prove his averment referred to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 14.06.2017 wherein item no. 8 the assessee was required to provide the list of the share transactions during the year in the tabular format which were duly furnished and examined by the AO and only thereafter the assessment was framed. The Ld. A.R submitted that in case of inadequate enquiry the revisionary jurisdic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e material on record, we find that certainly the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act was invoked by PCIT after a proposal was received from AO. According to the ld PCIT, the Order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is wrong as the AO has failed to examine certain issues and to that extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue . We have perused the facts on record and also the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Reeta Lakhmani & Ors. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction cannot be at the proposal given by the AO but at the behest of the Ld. PCIT. The relevant part is reproduced as under: "This aspect was considered by the learned Tribunal and after going thr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the exercise of power under Section 263 of the Actwas not in accordance with law. As could be seen from the substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue, the revenue has not raised any question on the said finding of the Tribunal which goes to show that the revenue had reconciled with the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal in that record. Therefore, a piecemeal challenge to the order passed by the learned Tribunal on one of the grounds on which relief was granted to the assessee is not maintainable. In more or less identical circumstances in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Durgapur Vs. M/s. Sinforte Pvt. Ltd. in ITAT No.104/2019 dated 7.1.2022 the court had dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rried out of the AO. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Kaushalya Dealers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The operative part is reproduced as under: "We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. S.M. Surana, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, learned advocate for the respondent/assessee. The short issue which, falls for consideration is whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act was justified. The learned Tribunal has pointed out that on four grounds the PCIT exercised power under Section 263 of the Act of which thr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate explanation not only on facts but also setting out various decisions of the High Courts and that of the Tribunal contending that the loss as reported by the assessee was permissible. After such elaborate discussion of the case with the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment. Thus, the learned Tribunal rightly held that it is not a case of 'no enquiry' or no proper verification but a detailed enquiry had been done by the Assessing Officer. The learned Tribunal has noted the factual position as put forth by the assessee before it in paragraph 6 of the order. Thus, we are of the view that the twin conditions which are required to be fulfilled before exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act have no....