← All Phrases

“assessment order erroneous”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 263534 judgments

The decision most relied on for assessment order erroneous is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on assessment order erroneous

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Max India Ltd.
295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,162
citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.
203 ITR 108 · 1993 · High Court
990
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order under Section 263 merely because they hold a different opinion or believe a deeper inquiry was warranted if the Assessing Officer has applied their mind and conducted some inquiry. Revision under Section 263 is permissible only in cases of a complete lack of inquiry or non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, not for merely inadequate inquiry.

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court
897
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT
67 ITR 84 · 1968 · Supreme Court
616
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests if the Assessing Officer accepts a sum offered as income by an assessee, even when that sum was not actually earned, thereby allowing revision under Section 263.

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT
99 ITR 375 · 1975 · High Court
543
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements or claims. The Commissioner can revise such an order under Section 263 without conducting further inquiries himself.

Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO
106 ITR 1 · 1977 · Supreme Court
486
citing judgments

The principle of finality dictates that stale issues should not be reactivated, and lapse of time brings repose to judicial and quasi-judicial controversies. A Commissioner cannot substitute their judgment for the Assessing Officer's unless the assessment order is legally erroneous, not merely less elaborate, thus limiting revisionary powers under Section 263.

ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.
343 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court
438
citing judgments

For exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, the Commissioner must first find that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, as this is a condition precedent. An order is not erroneous merely because two views are possible, or if the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's permissible view, or to simply remit the matter for further enquiries.

Judgments citing assessment order erroneous

Globalworth Securities Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Globalworth Securities Limited, Acit, Circle-4(1)(1), 716, Neelkanth Corporate Park, Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Kirol Road, Vidyavihar (West), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Mumbai-400086. Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcg 7624 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Aditya Ramachndran, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Aditya Ramachndran, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148(2)

circumstances of the case and consequent loss case and consequent loss of revenue has rendered the assessment order of revenue has rendered the assessment order erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. erroneous

Fdc Limited, Mumbai vs. Naresh Kumar Balodia Pr -CIT -1, Mumbai

In the result, the order under Section 263 of the Act passed by the learned PCIT on 22ndMarch 2022 for A

ITA 742/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrirahul Chaudhary, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Fdc Limited Income Tax–I, Fdc Limited 142–148, Room No. 330, Fdc Limited 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan S.V. Road, Vs. Jogeshwari (West), Mk Road Mumbai 400102 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacf0253H Assessee By : Shri K Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri K Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

held that any assessment order passed FDC Limited; A.Y. 2016–17 without conducting requisite enquiry and verification renders Assessment order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer was directed to reframe the assessment order de novo after conducting necessary verification ... Officer has not asked or did not verify form no.3CL and therefore, allowing the claim of the assessee under those sections makes the Assessment order erroneous, so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He, therefore, submitted that explanation 2(a) of Section

Tuscan Ventures Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1394/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailtuscan Ventures Private Vs. Acit, Circle 5(3)(2) Limited, 11, Silver Arch, 5Th Floor, 573, Aayakar Napeansea Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400006 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacct7474J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Hiro RaiFor Respondent: A.B.Koli
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

amended Rule 8D is mandatory and therefore the method of disallowance followed by the assessee company and accepted by AO has made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in concluding that the assessment had been

Smt. Nayna I. Mantri, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-30, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1982/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesmt. Nayna I. Mantri, Vs. Principal Commissioner 1601, Daffodil Tower, Of Income Tax-30, Nr. Chinchpoli Fatak, 540, 5Th Flr. Kautilya S.V. Road, Malad West, Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Mumbai-400064 G Block, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 Pan No.Aaopm2589C Appellant Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view after examining the records that is not acceptable to the PCIT, would not make the assessment order erroneous. In the present case twin conditions set out in section 263 are not satisfied and hence, the PCIT wrongly assumed revisional jurisdiction. 8. In view

Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 737/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 263Section 3Section 35

been passed against the original assessment order and hence, non-examination of the claim u/s 35(2AB) properly has rendered the original assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 5. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the AO has already examined capital expenditure

Shree Aniruddha Upasana Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 706/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Aniruddha Upasana Cit (Exemption), Foundation, 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hills Flat No. 702, Link Apartment, Vs. Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Tps Iii, Khari Village, Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Khar (West), Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaics 9217 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Snehal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2022

For Appellant: Snehal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

other aspects of the competiti adverting to the other aspects of the competition would render the assessment on would render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. With this view of order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. With this view

M/S.Mgn Agro Properties Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Mumbai-2, Mumbai

ITA 746/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Mamta Bansal, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 254Section 263

Rs.780.51 crore, which the AO has accepted without ascertaining and examining the correct facts and without making necessary enquiries/verifications which made the assessment order erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, was never agitated or decided by the Ld. CIT(A) or Tribunal in original assessment

Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai vs. Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1601/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bharat Petroleum बिधम/ Pcit, Circle-2 Corporation Ltd. Room No.344, Aayakar Vs. Taxation Section, Bhavan, M. K. Road, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan 1, Mumbai-400020. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2902M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 21.02.2020 For Assessment Year [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”] 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistryFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 32A

PCIT u/s 263 of the Act 10 A.Y. 2016-17 Bharat Petroleum Corporation as the lack of enquiry by the AO rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. So the condition precedent to invoke revisional jurisdiction is satisfied and therefore the assessee’s challenge against the exercise

Gmr Pochanpalli Expressways Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 363/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Gmr Pochanpalli Expressways Ltd., The Principal No. 25/1, Skip House, Commissioner Of Museum Road, Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 025. Bengaluru – 3. Vs. Pan: Aaccg4570C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil Jain, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 11-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 31/03/2022 By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 3 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

scrutiny, is not open for the Ld. PCIT to say that not adverting to the other aspects of the competition would render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We are therefore of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and, the same

M/S. Champion Dreams, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 421/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

such verification during the course of assessment proceedings resulting in non-application of mind and, in our view, the same would render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In this regard, we derive support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court

Anup Enterprises, Mumbai vs. The Principal CIT-19, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 1641/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalanup Enterprises, 41, 4Th Floor, Neelkamal, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aaafa5067D ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr.Cit-19, Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-19, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Ld. Pr.Cit) Dated 22.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 263Section 263(1)Section 3

failure of the AD to make further enquires before accepting the submissions of the assessee makes this assessment order erroneous and prejudicial because unlike the Civil Court which is neutral to give decision on the basis of evidence produced before it, an AO is not only an adjudicator

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkr Housing Development Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2135/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

same income in the right hands and failure by the Assessing Officer to assess the income in the right hands renders the assessment order erroneous. 35. Further, we notice that both Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) misdirected themselves by applying presumption

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Apana Ghar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2134/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

same income in the right hands and failure by the Assessing Officer to assess the income in the right hands renders the assessment order erroneous. 35. Further, we notice that both Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) misdirected themselves by applying presumption

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Apna Ghar Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2133/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

same income in the right hands and failure by the Assessing Officer to assess the income in the right hands renders the assessment order erroneous. 35. Further, we notice that both Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) misdirected themselves by applying presumption

ACIT 2(3) 1, Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2132/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

same income in the right hands and failure by the Assessing Officer to assess the income in the right hands renders the assessment order erroneous. 35. Further, we notice that both Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) misdirected themselves by applying presumption

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Housing Developement Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2131/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

same income in the right hands and failure by the Assessing Officer to assess the income in the right hands renders the assessment order erroneous. 35. Further, we notice that both Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) misdirected themselves by applying presumption

Reliance Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 8(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1245/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

disallowing the said loss as business loss. This action of the ld. AO, in the opinion of the ld. PCIT, had made the assessment order erroneous in as much as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue warranting revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. 3.6. We have already

Abhushan Jewellerys (India ) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 793/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT took the view that the assessing officer has not properly examined this issue and the same has resulted in making the impugned assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly, he initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. 2 Abhushan Jewellery (India

Juniper Networks International B.V., Mumbai vs. CIT (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 982/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) Juniper Networks International B.V, Boeing Avenue 240, 1119Pz Schipol-Rijk, Amsterdam,0 Netherlands Pan: Aadcj-0974-G ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It), Mumbai -3, Room No.1601, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep Bhalla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma & Shri Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma &
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

correct legal position rejected the submissions made by assessee and invoked Explanation – 2 to section 263 of the Act. The CIT held the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the Assessing Officer has failed to make enquiries or verification in respect of the claim made

Matrabhav Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 872/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalematrabhav Trust Vs. Pr. Cit – 17 5Th Floor, Sunteck Room No. 120, 1St Floor, Centre, 37 40 Kautilya Bhavan G Subhash Road, Vile Block, Bandra Kurla Parle (East) Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadtm5199F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Rakesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Shri .A.B. Koli.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 17, Mumbai U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Rakesh Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Shri .A.B. Koli.DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessed in the status of AOP. The AO was guided by this proposition and this view does not make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thus, the allegation made that the trust is required to be assessed as individual and the Learned Assessing Officer ... said that the Learned Assessing Officer hasnot made the enquiry. Considering one view by the Learned Assessing Officer does not make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and such order does not come under the review powers of Principal Commissioner of Income