Case Law Details
Long Life Realtors LLP Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
We find that even the CBDT Advisory dated 14.12.2018 did not point out that the recognition granted to the Donee Trust u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act had been withdrawn. In view of the aforesaid Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006, the bonafide belief of the ld. AO while framing the assessment on 13.11.2018 that the approval sought by the Donee Trust is existing in perpetuity cannot be faulted or doubted in the instant case. Admittedly, the CBDT Advisory to the field officers was issued only on 14.12.2018, which is after the completion of assessment by the ld. AO on 13.11.2018. Hence on the date of passing the assessment order, the ld. AO had no occasion to even suspect that the recognition granted to the Donee Trust u/s 35(1)(ii) had been withdrawn or the same was not existing perpetually. Hence no error could be attributed in the order passed by the ld. AO on 13.11.2018. Once it is held that there is no error in the order of ld. AO, the ld. PCIT would be precluded from assuming revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act as one of the twin conditions mandated in section 263 is not satisfied. The law is very well settled that in order to invoke revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT is duty bound to bring on record that
a) The order passed by the ld. AO is erroneous and
b) It should be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
