Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that ;Explanation 2 to s. 263 inserted by the FA 2015 (which confers power upon the CIT to revise assessments where inadequate inquiries have been conducted by the AO) is prospective in nature and does not apply even to a case where the CIT passed the order after Explanation 2 came on the statute The CIT should show that the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. The action of the CIT in directing the AO to conduct enquiry in a particular manner is contrary to the law interpreted in CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd(2014)) 361 ITR 505( Delhi)(HC) If such course of action is permitted, the CIT can find fault with each and every assessment order without making any enquiry or verification in order to establish that the assessment order is not sustainable in law. ( ITA No. 3125/Mum/2017, dt. 19.01.2018)(AY. 2012-13)
Indus Best Hospitality & Realtors Pvt Ltd. V. PCIT ( Mum)(Trib),www.itatonline.org
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Land development expenditure-Explanation 2 to s. 263 inserted by the FA 2015 (which confers power upon the CIT to revise assessments where inadequate inquiries have been conducted by the AO) is prospective in nature and does not apply even to a case where the CIT passed the order after Explanation 2 came on the statute- Revision is held to be not valid unless the CIT demonstrate that the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law .