TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1943
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant then such an order of assessment could not be regarded as erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely because the learned Commissioner of Income Tax had a different opinion and that too, without having established in any manner that, view adopted by the learned Assessing Officer was an impossible or unsustainable view. 1.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate that action u/s 263 of the Act is otherwise too inapplicable on the factual matrix of the facts of the instant case since it is not a case of "lack of enquiry" or "lack of investigation" and therefore the invocation u/s 263 of the Act is not in accordance with law. 1.3 That the observation of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax that clause (b) of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act is applicable on the facts of the appellant as admittedly the learned Assessing Officer has allowed the claim only after inquiry of the claim; and, in any case the allegation that the claim was allowed without proper enquiry is misconceived, misplaced and, otherwise too based on incorrect interpretation of Explanation 2(b) to section 263 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is therefore not in accordance with law. 5. That even otherwise the finding that order of assessment is erroneous in as much prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground that "the property purchased by the assessee had a tin shed over it at the time of purchase of the property and the same cannot be considered as a residential house as per provisions of section 54F of I.T. Act. Hence, deduction u/s 54F of Rs.2,02,29,562/- is hereby disallowed" is based on factually incorrect assumption, incorrect application to the provisions of law and therefore untenable. 6. That furthermore since the order of assessment dated 12.5.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act was itself without jurisdiction therefore the impugned order made u/s 263 of the Act is also illegal, invalid and untenable." 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, referring to ground nos. 2 & 2.1 of grounds of appeal submitted that since the assessment order dated 12.05.2021 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act had been passed with approval u/s 153D of the Act the same could not be validly revised u/s 263 of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the Ld. PCIT has failed to appreciate th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 1108 to 1113/PUN/2014], Lucknow Bench in the case of MEHTAB ALAM v. AC IT [IT Appeal Nos.288 to 294/Lkw/2014], Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CH. KRISHNA MURTHY v. ACIT [IT Appeal No.766/Hyd/2012] and one of the judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of CIT v. DR. ASHOK KUMAR [IT Appeal No. 192 of 2000] and Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of TRINITY INFRA VENTURES LTD. v. DCIT [IT Appeal No.584/H/2015] and consistently held that once the order under Section 143(3) r/w section 153A of the Act has been passed after taking prior approval of the AClT under section 153D of the Act, then the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. Therefore, the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Appellate Tribunal had attained finality. Hence, the ITAT, Indore has not committed any error of law by following the same view. 8. Even otherwise, as per section 263 of the Act, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer, is erroneous in so f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of receipts for a.y. 1991- 92 to 1994-95 nor the learned D.R. Was able to point out any such material which might have been ignored by the AO while framing the assessment and thus the vary basis for passing the impugned order goes away. The CIT also failed to point out as to why the AO failed to work out the amount of concealed income correctly, rather the AO had made the additions on estimate basis for all the assessment years though there was no seized material indicating suppression of receipts for these assessment years and for A.Y. 1995-96 the material found at the time of search had been analysed after necessary enquiries and assessment had been framed accordingly. 5.2 In the last it is also relevant fact that the AO was fully alive about, the facts of the case and that is why he got necessary approval of Addl. Commissioner before completing the assessment orders for all the assessment years and once that is not disputed by the Revenue than the CIT would not be justified in interfering in the approval accorded by the Addl. CIT for framing the assessment order and thus there was no case for setting aside the assessment orders for the assessment years in question. On t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Gyan Infrabuild (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 664 (Patna - Trib.); (iv) BU Bhandari Schemes v. Pr. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 637 to 641 (Pune) of 2018, dated 14-11-2018]; (v) Vishwa Infraways (P) Ltd. v. CIT (Central) [IT Appeal Nos. 596,597 & 599 (Pune) of 2015]; (vi) Rasi Kalal M. Dhariwal (HUF) v. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 1102 to 1107 (Pune) of 2014]; (vii) Ramamoorthy Vasudevan vs. PCIT [IT Appeal Nos. 967 & 968 (Pune) of 2016]; (viii) Dhariwal Industries Ltd. v. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 1108 to 1113 (Pune) of 2014, dated 23-12-2016]; (ix) Smt. Nama Chinnamma vs. Dy.CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 1150-1157 (Hyd.) of 2015, dated 9-8-2017]; (x) Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 584-589 (Hyd.) of 2015, dated 4-12-2015]; (xi) S. Satyanarayana v. Syed Rasiuddin [IT Appeal No. 901 (Hyd.) of 2014]; (xii) Mehtab Alam v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 288 (Luck.) of 2014, dated 18-11- 2014]; (xiii) Dharmendra Kumar Bansal v. CIT [2014] 48 taxmann.com 53/152 ITD 406 (Jaipur - Trib.); & (xiv) CIT v. Dr. Ashok Kumar, Proprietor, S.S. Nursing Home [IT Appeal No. 192 of 2000, dated 6- 8-2012] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r passed by the PCIT is unsustainable due to lack of jurisdiction in invoking section 263 of the Act for the reason that the same was passed upon taking prior approval u/s 153A of the Act, was not challenged by the Department before the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, thus, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in its judgment dated 01.04.2024 has held as follows: "8. Even otherwise, as per section 263 of the Act, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may make enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify. For passing any order u/s 143(3) & 153A of the Act, prior approval of Joint Commissioner is required u/s 153A of the Act, or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as the case may be. Therefore, once prior approval had already been taken by the Assessing Officer and accepted the return submitted by the assessee, then the same authority cannot exercise ....