Can order u/s 153A be revised u/s 263 without revising approval u/s 153D by Joint Commissioner?

Respected Members

?

Unravel the complexities of income tax with today's income tax case law video to get a comprehensive insight of fiscal laws.

?

YouTube video link for Hindi video:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI29FteaLcc

?

YouTube video link for English video:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar5OjAgOyHs

?

YouTube shorts video link:?https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-Y5a76Ri69Q

?

Short note of today's case law for quick reference:

?

[2024] 114 ITR (Trib) 184 (ITAT[Pat])

?

[BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL — PATNA BENCH]

(video conferencing at Kolkata)

?

GYAN INFRABUILD P. LTD.

v.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

?

DR. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member) and SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

May 13, 2024.

?

1. The assessee company was engaged in the business of building and road construction

??????????? .

2. After the search operation u/s 132, notice u/s 153A was issued and assessment Completed by accepting returned income by taking approval of joint commissioner.

?

3. Thereafter, the Principal Commissioner, invoking the revisionary powers u/s 263, observed that the A.O. not having examined all documents, his order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

?

4. On appeal by the assessee, Tribunal held that:

?

5. Principal Commissioner erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 by revising the order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) without considering the prior approval already accorded to the assessing officer u/s 153D.

?

6. That when orders u/s 153A had been passed after receiving approval u/s 153D, the Principal Commissioner’s revision of the order u/s 153A without first revising the order u/s 153D meant that no defect had been observed by the Principal Commissioner in the approval given u/s 153D.

?

7. Hence the action of the Principal Commissioner in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 could not be held to be tenable and the impugned proceedings deserved to be quashed on this ground itself.

?

8. It was also held that when the A.O. based on his observations had made an addition in the hands of another assessee, the Principal Commissioner, without revising the assessment order of another assessee, which have been framed by the same A.O., could not revise the assessee’s assessment and direct addition, since it would be tantamount to double taxation.