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

Clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act which was omitted with effect from 01.04.2017, and effect of such “omission” of clause (i) of section 92BA means that this provision never existed in the statute book, since clause (i) of section 92BA never existed in the statute book therefore, ld PCIT cannot exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in respect of specified domestic transactions referred to in clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961— Revision —Since clause (i) of section 92BA never existed in the statute book therefore, PCIT cannot exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 in respect of specified domestic transactions referred to in clause (i) of section 92BA.

Facts: Although in this appeal the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, but at the time of hearing the solitary grievance of the assessee has been confined to the legal issue that since clause (i) of section 92BA was omitted with effect from 01.04.2017 and the effect of such omission is that clause (i) of section 92BA had obliterated from the Statute and it would be treated that such clause (i)of section 92BA was never existed in the Statute Book, therefore, PCIT can not exercise his jurisdiction under section 263.

Held, that PCIT issued the show cause notice u/s 263 in respect of specified domestic transactions referred to in clause (i) of section 92BA which was omitted with effect from 01.04.2017, and effect of such “omission” of clause (i) of section 92BA means that this provision never existed in the statute book, since clause (i) of section 92BA never existed in the statute book therefore, PCIT cannot exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 in respect of specified domestic transactions referred to in clause (i) of section 92BA. Therefore, the action 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 as narrated. Thus, the usurpation of jurisdiction of exercising revisional jurisdiction by the Principal CIT is ‘’null’’ in the eyes of law and, therefore, we are inclined to quash the very assumption of jurisdiction to invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Principal CIT. Therefore, we quash the order of the Principal CIT being ab initio void. - BHARTIA-SMSIL (JV) V/s ITO - [2020] 26 ITCD Online 089 (ITAT-GAUHATI)