TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1812
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amined the same and specifically covered the issue in the Notice U/S 142(1) dt. 21.12.2023, examined the seized documents and conducted multiple hearings which was duly supervised by the JCIT and further the assessment order was passed only after his approval. Thus in fact it is a case of thorough and deliberate inquiry against the conclusion of no inquiry reached by the PCIT Central. 2. For that the Ld. PCIT Central erred in law and on facts in concluding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue without any new finding of facts from the seized materials- which was either missed or not considered by the A.O. resulting in inadequate or not inquiry. 3. For that the Ld. PCIT Central erred on facts and in law in treating the amount of referral fees of Rs. 94 lakhs disclosed during search as unexplained and to be covered U/s 69B in spite of the source of the same having been explained with corresponding supporting evidence for found at the time of search operations itself. 4. For that the Ld. PCIT Central erred in law and on facts in concluding that the amount of referral fees of Rs. 94 lakhs disclosed by the appellant sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntion to the fact that a search and seizure action was conducted on 22.12.2022, in the course of which the assessee made certain declarations. The return of income was filed on 28.10.2022. The assessee is by profession a doctor in M/s Fatma Hospital, which is the proprietorship concern of her spouse Md. Tanweer Alam and she is also a partner in the firm M/s Fatma Medical Hall and derives income from salary and interest on capital. During the course of search, incriminating documents were found. The appeal was heard along with the appeal in the case of Mohammad Tanweer Alam and the Ld. AR submitted that the facts are identical and the submissions as made in the case of the spouse may also be considered in the case of the assessee. 6. The Ld. DR drew our attention to the fact that the appeal has been filed against the order u/s 263 of the Act which related to the fact that the correct sections were not invoked by the Ld. AO while making the addition, and the special rate of tax applicable and the penalty under the correct section was not initiated. 7. We have considered the submission made and also gone through the facts of the case and the order of the Ld. PCIT. The Ld. PCIT h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to any parameters. However, the PCIT erred in interpreting the provisions which require the PCIT to either prove that no inquiry was made in the matter or inquiry made was erroneous/insufficient based on materials on record. The Case of the appellant does not fall in the first category i.e. case of no inquiry as the matter was decided after deliberate and specifically directed inquiry for the income disclosed by the appellant as business income and which was raised in revision. The Entire assessment proceedings was under the supervision of JCIT and Assessment Order was approved by him which clearly proves beyond doubt that the issue was not only inquired by the AO but was also subjected to continuous scrutiny by the JCIT and culminated in passing of assessment order under the supervisions of JCIT and the assessment order represented the conclusion drawn by the AO after adequate inquiry and represented a conscious and reasoned decision. As far as the case of inadequate inquiry is concerned - the PCIT has not brought on record any new material which suggested that inquiry on a particular issue was not made which would have been required to bring the issue to its logical end....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een as to whether the provisions of section 263 of the Act are attracted in this case or not. For ready reference, section 263 of the Act as applicable to the year under consideration is extracted as under: "263. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or 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 or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including,- (i) an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment; or (ii) an order modifying the order under section 92CA; or (iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section. Explanation 1.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. Explanation 3.-For the purposes of this section, "Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.-In computing the period of limitation for the pur-poses of sub-section (2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and the period commencing on the date on which stay on any proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO, the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it would be certainly 'prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue'. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Smt. Lila Choudhury v. CIT [2008] 167 Taxman 1 (Gau.) that thus, "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" would mean an erroneous order which goes against the interests of revenue collection. In the case of CIT v. Emery Stone Mfg. Co. [1995] 83 Taxman 643 (Raj.) the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that Allowing certain deductions without proving the claim or without proper verification or in ignorance of the provisions of law are the various instances on the basis of which the order could be considered prejudicial to the Revenue and could be set right in revisional jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 79 Taxman 184 (Guj.) has held that it is not necessary that every order which is found erroneous is also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. What is meant by words "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" has not been defined. However, giving ordinary meaning to the words used in the statute, they must mean tha....