TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The impugned revisionary order arises from the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 30.03.2023 under section 147 read with sections 144 and 143(3) of the Act. 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 28.09.2018 declaring total income at Rs. NIL, which was processed under section 143(1). Subsequently, on the basis of information disseminated on the Insight Portal, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings and issued notice under section 148 on 30.03.2022. The order of reassessment records that no return was filed by the assessee in response to the notice under section 148. 2.2 The Assessing Officer proceeded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow cause notice dated 06.02.2025 initiating proceedings under section 263. The assessee was granted opportunity to file its reply and to attend hearing on or before 20.02.2025. The assessee submitted a written reply dated 20.02.2025 contending that a detailed submission had been filed earlier before the Assessing Officer on 14.03.2023 and that the Assessing Officer had examined all the materials produced before him spanning over 100 pages of documentary evidence including the ledger accounts, sales invoices, bank account statements and GST returns. It was also submitted that all the transactions were conducted through banking channels with proper GST compliance at the rate of 28% plus 160% cess. 2.5 The PCIT, however, rejected the conten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 263 when both conditions for revision - the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue - are not fulfilled. 1.4 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. PCIT ought not to have held that the AO has passed erroneous or prejudicial assessment order as enumerated in Section 263 when the Assessing Officer had examined all the documentary evidences submitted by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. 2.1 The Ld. PCIT has erred in law in holding that reassessment proceedings are complete scrutiny proceedings allowing examination of any issue, when the law clearly states that reassessment must be confined to the issues for which reasons were recorded for reopening.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s factually incorrect, and the revisionary jurisdiction has been assumed without appreciating the material already on record. 4. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, placed strong reliance upon the order passed by the PCIT. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Coming to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263, the statute expressly mandates that the Principal Commissioner may revise an order "after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary." The second limb of this requirement, namely making necessary inquiry, is not a formality but a mandatory safeguard against arbitrary revision. On a plain reading of the....