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 main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. Pr. CIT invoking his second (2nd) revisional jurisdictional u/s. 263 of the Act against the action of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’) who framed the re-assessment order pursuant to the first revisional order dated 23.08.2016 which impugned action of Ld. Pr. CIT, according to assessee, is without satisfying the requisite conditional precedent as stipulated u/s. 263 of the Act and therefore without jurisdiction and resultantly bad in law, so it has to be quashed.

Sec. 68 & 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961— Revision — CIT(A) has made a bald statement that the AO’s assessment order attracts Explanation 2(c) u/s. 263 ,however, he failed to spell out in his impugned order how the action of AO while framing the assessment order is not in accordance to any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119, so, the deeming fiction as envisaged in Explanation (2) u/s. 263 cannot be used to interfere with the order of AO and this action of Pr. CIT is bad for non-application of mind, therefore, we allow the appeal of assessee on the ground that since the Pr CIT has exercised his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 without satisfying the condition precedent as stipulated in section 263, therefore, it was held that the impugned action of the Pr. CIT is without jurisdiction and, therefore, is null in the eyes of law and consequently it is quashed - AMRITRASHI INFRA PRIVATE LTD. V/s PR. CIT - [2020] 28 ITCD Online 041 (ITAT-KOLKATA)