- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
ITAT: Revisionary Power of PCIT can't be raised, AO had carefully discharged the duty
ITAT: Revisionary Power of PCIT can't be raised, AO had carefully discharged the duty Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)'s Amritsar Bench held that AO had performed the duties diligently and therefore it was not possible to invoke the revisionary power of PCIT. In her appeal, Paradise Rubber Industries has objected to the judgment of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax attests to the fact that...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
ITAT: Revisionary Power of PCIT can't be raised, AO had carefully discharged the duty
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)'s Amritsar Bench held that AO had performed the duties diligently and therefore it was not possible to invoke the revisionary power of PCIT.
In her appeal, Paradise Rubber Industries has objected to the judgment of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax attests to the fact that the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 11th Dec, 2017 is erroneous in as much as it is detrimental to the interests of revenue and has accordingly set aside the order using the revisionary power u/s 263. In addition to the legal position, the facts have not been correctly understood."
Moreover, under section 263, four, the principal CIT invoked the revisionary power on an issue not a part of the reasons for which the case was referred for scrutiny valuation by the assessing officer. Taking the position that the assessing officer's decision was not prejudicial or erroneous to the revenue, the Ld.AR contended that the issue was not subject to a greater level of scrutiny than that which the matter qualified for because it didn't require the issue to be examined beyond that.
Dr. M.L. Meena, member of the Accountant Committee and Judge Laliet Kumar, judicial member, ruled that once the assessing officer applied his mind to the specific issues that were dealt with by the assessing officer, it could not be said that his order was erroneous or adverse to the revenue interest. Upon fulfilling the requirement of the circular issued by the Board in this regard, the Revenue in its wisdom directed the assessing Officer to settle the specific issues and defined the conditions associated with deviations from the specific issues. When the AO diligently discharged his duties, PCIT cannot make the argument that the order passed by the assessing officer was erroneous and detrimental to the revenue.