TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... holding that the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153C/143(3) of Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the directions issued by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of Act are erroneous, vague, ambiguous and untenable and, therefore the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by the Ld. PCIT is liable to be quashed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order without appreciating the fact that the same was passed after taking due approval u/s 153D of JCIT. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. PCIT erred in stating that the assessment passed by the assessing officer was without making inquiries or verification which should have been made. 6. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. PCIT erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act and thereby directing the Assessing Officer to the carry out detailed enquiries on issue of alleged non-genuine transactions of Rs. 5,50,000/-. 7. On the facts and circumstanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er hand the Ld. DR strongly objected to the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The ld. DR further submitted that the Ld. PCIT has the authority to invoke provisions of Section 263 of the Act even though the assessment u/s.153C is completed by taking prior approval u/s.153D of the Act. The Ld. DR vehemently submitted that taking prior approval u/s.153D for completion of assessment u/s.153C shall not come in the way of the powers exercised by the Ld.PCIT u/s.263 of the Act. 7. Heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. First contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in ground No. 1 and 4 of grounds of appeal is that when once the AO completed the assessment u/s.153A/153C by taking prior approval u/s.153D of the Act, the Ld.PCIT cannot invoke provisions of section 263 and hold that such assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We observed that identical issue came up for consideration before the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Alankit Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT in ITA No. 2054/Del/2024 dated 25.11.2024 wherein the Tribunal held as under :- "3. We have heard the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the Id. revisional authority is not only supposed to see the assessment record of AO, but also the record of the approval which as far as the revisional authority is concerned becomes "record of the quasi judicial authority whose order is being examined by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, without giving a finding that the prior approval u/s 153D was vitiated and was also erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the assessment order independently cannot be held to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 9.1 The catena of judicial pronouncements relied by the Id. AR have also laid down the same proposition of law and we will like to refer specifically to the judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Prakhar Developers (P) Ltd. (supra) where the Hon'ble Madras High Court has taken into consideration the fact that the Pune Bench order in the case of Ramamoorthy Vasudevan v. PCIT [IT Appeal Nos. 967 & 968/Pune/2016] wherein it was held that the order passed by the PCIT is unsustainable due to lack of jurisdiction in invoking section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion for the four years, the assessment orders were passed u/s 153A of the Act after approval of Addl. CIT u/s 1530 dated 24.09.2021. It was submitted by the Id. AR that an order which has been subject of approval u/s 153D of the Act cannot be subject to revision u/s 263 of the Act and for that the id. AR has relied the following judicial pronouncements:- i) PCIT vs. Prakhar Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 162 taxmann.com 48 (MP), ii) Smt. Abha Bansal vs. PCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Del-Trib); iii) Gyan Infrabuild (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2024) 162 taxmann.com 664 (Patna); iv) BU Bhandari Schemes v. Pr. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 637 to 641/Pune/2018 dated 14-11-2018) v) Vishwa Infraways (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (Central) [IT Appeal Nos: 596,597 & 599/Pune/2015]; vi) Rasi Kalal M. Dhariwal (HUF) v. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 1102 to 1107/Pune/2014), vii) Ramamoorthy Vasudevan v. PCIT [IT Appeal Nos. 967 & 968/Pune/2016]; viii) Dhariwal Industries Ltd. v. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 1108 to 1113 (Pune) of 2014, dated 23-12-2016]; ix) Smt. Nama Chinnamma v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 1150-1157 (Hyd.) of 2015, dated 9-8-2017): x) Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lied by the Id. AR have also laid down the same proposition of law and we will like to refer specifically to the judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Prakhar Developers (P) Ltd. (supra) where the Hon'ble Madras High Court has taken into consideration the fact that the Pune Bench order in the case of Ramamoorthy Vasudevan v. PCIT (IT Appeal Nos. 967 & 968/Pune/2016] wherein it was held that the order 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 judgement 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 mak....