SMT.SAROJ RAMESH RANDER,NAGPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

It emerges during the course of hearing that the PCIT’s impugned sec.263 revision directions hardly require us to deal with the relevant factual matrix at length. Suffice to say, he has invoked the statutory revision jurisdiction thereby

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival stands against and in support of correctness of the learned PCIT’s lower revision directions and find no merit in Revenue’s stand. This is for the clinching reason that the Assessing Officer herein had framed his assessment dated 27.11.2016 u/sec.153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act in furtherance to the “search” action at assessee’s premises who is part of Rander group whereas the PCIT has attributed his impugned failure on account of non-examination of the seized material found in M/s. J B Jewels of Bagaria group’s search. Learned CIT-DR could hardly dispute that such a seized document in a different search could only lead to initiation of sec.153C proceedings against the assessee than forming part of 3 ITA.No.81/NAG./2019 sec.153A assessment in issue. It is thus a fit case to hold that learned PCIT has erred in law and on facts in invoking sec.263 revision jurisdiction for revising an assessment framed u/sec.153A of the Act regarding some material which could only form subject matter of sec.153C proceedings. We thus accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground for this clinching reason to annul the PCIT’s impugned revision directions. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.