Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

section 153D of the I.T. Act, 1961, could be revised by the Learned PCIT under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?

7. It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that assessment order have been admittedly passed after approval under section 153D of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the A.O. before completion assessment has discussed the matter with the JCIT several times and later on got his approval under section 153D of the I.T. Act, 1961 and passed the impugned assessment order. Therefore, in such circumstances, once an Order have been passed under section 153B/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, after obtaining necessary approval under section 153D of the I.T. Act, the same cannot be the subject matter of Revision under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee in support of this contention has placed reliance upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs., Dr. Ashok Kumar in ITA.No.192/2000 Dated 06.08.2012 [PB- 112 of the Judgment Paper Book]. The assessee has also placed reliance upon Order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Shri Surendra L. Heera Nandani vs., Pr.CIT in ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon.

8. ITA.Nos.901/Hyd/2014 S. Satyanarayana vs., Mr. Syed Rasiuddin

9. ITA.No.288/LUCK/2014 Dated 18.11.2014 Mehtab Alam vs., DCIT

10. 48 taxmann.com 53 (JP) Dharmendra Kumar Bansal ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon.

7.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Learned PCIT has not accepted the contention of assessee that the decisions relied upon in the impugned order did not apply to the facts of the case. He has submitted that the decisions relied upon by the Learned PCIT are not applicable to the approval under section 153D of the I.T. Act. He has further submitted that in the absence of Revision of Order of approval under section 153D of the I.T. Act, the action under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not permissible. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon Explanation-1 to Section 263(1) of the I.T. Act and submitted that the Order of assessment passed with the approval under section 153D of the I.T. Act could not have been revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. He has submitted that it is well settled that the Judgment is a proposition what is actually decided and not what logically or remotely reduce therefrom as has been held in many cases and relied upon Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Goodyear India Ltd., vs., State of Haryana ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon.

[1991] 188 ITR 402 (SC) and CIT vs., Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC).

8. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the impugned order of Learned PCIT and submitted that the plain reading of provisions of Section 263 of the Act makes it clear that CIT may call for and examine "any proceeding under this Act". Thus, proceedings under section 153D are very well covered under such proposition. The Learned PCIT has jurisdiction to proced under section 263 of the I.T. Act even in such circumstances where approval is obtained under section 153D of the I.T. Act. The jurisdiction under section 263 could be exercised by the Commissioner and not by the JCIT. Explanation-1 to Section 263(1) do not prohibit the PCIT from proceeding under section 263 of the I.T. Act. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the Order of the ITAT, Panaji Bench in the case of Dr. William Britto vs., CIT, Karnataka (Central) [2015] 56 taxmann.com 170 (Panaji- Tribu.) in which it was decided that the power of revision under section 263 of the I.T. Act is very much available to the PCIT while reviewing the Order of the A.O. approved ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon.

under section 120. It may be noted that Order of assessment passed with the approval of JCIT under section 153D of the I.T. Act, 1961 could not be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Ld. D.R. has, however, relied upon the Order of ITAT, Panaji Bench, but, has not explained whether the Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs., Dr. Ashok Kumar (supra) or different Benches of the Tribunal have been considered in this case by the Panaji Bench. It is not decided in this case that assessment order cannot be revised without revising the approval under section 153D of the I.T. Act and Explanation-1 to Section 263 of the I.T. Act has also not been considered. Therefore, this decision relied upon by the Ld. D.R. would not apply to this case. Further the Judgment in the case of Param Transport Pvt. Ltd., of Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court (supra) is not with regard to approval obtained under section 153D of the I.T. Act because in this case it was held that revisional power under section 263 of the I.T. Act is applicable to assessments under search and seizure. However, it is not explained by ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon.