Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

The order of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in the facts and circumstances narrated above, the usurpation of jurisdiction exercising revisional jurisdiction by the Principal CIT is ‘’null’’ in the eyes of law.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 263 of Income tax Act, 1961— Revision —Since in assessee's case under consideration there is no incriminating material, therefore order passed by the assessing officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

Facts: The ground of appeal raised by the Assessee before Tribunal was PCIT has erred in passing order u/s 263 and initiating proceedings u/s 263 and subsequently setting aside the order passed by D.C.I.T Central Circle u/s 153A/143(3) for examining the allowability of deduction u/s 54F, when there was no scope for making any disallowance by the Assessing Officer in the order passed by him u/s 153A/143(3), since no incriminating documents whatsoever was found during search operations u/s 132 on the assessee. The action taken by the PCIT is ab-initio-void and accordingly order u/s 263 is liable to be quashed.

Held, that in assessee's case original assessment was completed much prior to search and seizure therefore the assessment year under consideration, that is, A.Y. 2010-11 is unabated and in unabated proceedings, the AO cannot disturb the findings given thereon in the original assessment unless there is incriminating material unearthed by the search team, since in assessee's case under consideration there is no incriminating material therefore order passed by the assessing officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. - KUSUMLATASONTHALIA V/s PR. CIT - [2020] 26 ITCD Online 084 (ITAT-KOLKATA)