Case Law Details
APC Books Vs A.C.I.T (ITAT Delhi)
Facts- The assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT-10, Delhi u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 wherein the PCIT has held that the assessment order dated 14.12.2019 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
The assessee stated that the Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, has raised specific queries relating to the cash deposit after demonetization and has made detailed enquiries, for which the assessee has submitted a detailed reply along with supporting documentary evidence and argued that the assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
Conclusion- The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 has held that where it was discernible from record that the A.O has applied his mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion.
Considering the facts of the case in hand, as discussed elsewhere, and in light of the judicial decisions discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the assessment order dated 14.12.2019 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. CIT is bad in law. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the ld. CIT dated 23.12.2011 and restore that of the Assessing Officer dated 14.12.2019.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
