Held that since the AO did not make any addition on the issue for which the assessment was reopened meaning thereby that the reassessment proceedings became final. CIT could act explore any other issue under a 263 which could not be explored by the AO in reassessment proceeding. The AO had made any addition on account of long-term capital gain earned by the assessee on transfer of industrial plot, then other points could also be examined-in the absence of any addition on the first point, no other issue can be entertained, even under revisional Jurisdiction under 263 of the Act. Revision order was quashed. Followed CIT v. Mohmed Junded Dadani (2013) 258 CTR 168/ 85 DTR 12 / 355 ITR 172 (Guj) (HC) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v. CTT (2011) 242 CTR 117/ 57 DTR 281 / 336 ITR 136 (Delhi)(HC) CTP v. Jet Airways (1) Ltd (2011) 239 CTR 183 /52 DTR 71/ 331 ITR 236 (Born) (HC) (AY. 2011-12)
Binal Parixit Patel (Mrs) v. PCIT (2022) 217 TTJ 10 (UO) (Ahd)(Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Reassessment was done on account of capital gains-Assessing Officer is not making any addition on capital gain-Addition was made on account of sale of shares-Revision order on other issues is not valid in law. [S. 45, 54, 143(3), 147, 148]