The AO made assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. During the year under consideration the assessee sold shares of two companies in whose case search and seizure operations were conducted and such companies were alleged to be involved in providing bogus accommodation entries. The Ld Pr. CIT invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act on the ground that the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of PCIT.

The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT has not at all specified what more enquiry was required when, AO has made all the enquiries and all the details were supplied. It is not the case of Ld. PCIT that any defect was noted in this connection hence, the direction given by the Ld. PCIT in this case is simply to make further roving enquiries, which is totally unsustainable in law. The alternate contention of the assessee was that if the AO reassess the income pursuant to direction under section 263 of the Act and as the amount involved is assessed under section 68 of the Act, only effect will be that the income offered under business income would now be assessed under section 68 of the Act as income from other sources.

In this regards the Tribunal held that the assessment year under consideration is assessment year 2015-16, the CBDT circular referred by counsel of assessee which was on clarification regarding non-allowability of set off of losses against the deemed income under section 115BBE of the Act clearly provides that the amendment brought in by financial year 2016 in this regard is inserted with w.e.f. 1 April 2017 and assessee is entitled to claim set off against income determined under section 115BBE of the Act till the AY 2016-17. Hence, even if the section referred by the Ld. CIT is invoked the assessee will still be eligible for the set off as referred above and the income would be the same as assessed by the AO in the original assessment. It is a settled law that after the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction the income assessed remains the same, it cannot be said that the order of the AO is prejudicial to the interest of revenue held that Ld. CIT’s jurisdiction is invalid set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT.  (AY. 2015-16)