Case Law Details
Shri Subbaraya Annamalai Siva Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderbad)
Ld.DR fails to dispute the clinching fact that the Pr. CIT’s impugned order has nowhere held the assessment in question dated 06.01.2015 as an erroneous one so far as it causes prejudice to the interest of Revenue as per Sec.263 of the Act. Ld.Pr.CIT has rather directed the Assessing Officer to cancel his corresponding assessment in issue in other words. We find no reason to sustain either of the two courses adopted by the learned Pr.CIT herein.
Hon’ble apex court’s land mark decision Malabar Industrial Co. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) ad CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) held that an assessment or re-assessment, as the case may be, could only be revised in case it satisfies the twin conditions of erroneous as well as causing prejudice to the interest of revenue; simultaneously. There is no such indication in the Pr. CIT’s above extracted directions. Coupled with this, he has also directed the Assessing officer to cancel the assessment himself which the latter has no jurisdiction to do so as per Sec. 263 of the Act. We thus annul the impugned revision order itself for the precise twin aforementioned reasons.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
These two assessee’s appeals for AY 2009-10 arise against the CIT(A), Tirupathi’s order dated 26.02.2019 and Pr.CIT, Tirupathi’s order dated 26.02.2017 passed in case nos.10221/2017-18 and case no.263/Pr. CIT/TPT/2016-17 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’); respectively.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
