Sec. 263 Revision Justified as AO Failed to Verify Audit Party’s Objections on MF/Share Investments | HC
- Blog|News|Income Tax|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 31 January, 2025
Case Details: Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2 vs Kirti Anand - [2025] 170 taxmann.com 585 (Punjab & Haryana)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Sanjeev Prakash Sharma & Sanjay Vashisth, JJ.
-
Yogesh Putney & Vaibhav Gupta, Srs. Standing Counsels for the Appellant.
-
Divya Suri, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The Assessing Officer (AO) passed the assessment order. After the assessment order was passed, audit objections were raised with regard to the inquiry said to have been conducted by the AO. The audit party recorded several major audit objections regarding the assessee’s investment in mutual funds/shares. No verification was done by the AO during the assessment proceedings relating to the assessee’s explanation.
The Commissioner invoked revision jurisdiction under section 263 and set aside the assessment order passed by the AO. The Tribunal quashed the order passed under section 263 by the Commissioner. The matter reached the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the sine-qua-non for interference by the Commissioner under section 263 to the assessment order passed by the AO is the satisfaction of certain conditions, i.e. the order passed by the AO is erroneous, and secondly, the order results in prejudice to the revenue.
After the assessment order, audit objections were raised regarding the Assessing Officer’s inquiry, with major concerns over the assessee’s investment in mutual funds/shares. The Assessing Officer did not verify the explanation provided by the assessee during the assessment proceedings.
Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be such that it was to be interfered with by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue was allowed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- B & A Plantation and Industries Ltd. v. CIT 2007 (290) ITR 395 [Para 8] – distinguished.
List of Cases Referred to
- B & A Plantation & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 290 ITR 395 (Gauhati) (para 8) audit objections.
- In CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. 1998 (9) SCC 272 (para 8).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied