The case involves four separate appeals by the assessee against four separate orders of the Pr. CIT, Central-1, Delhi for A.Y.2008-09 to 2011-12. The primary contention is on the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the Pr. CIT.

The assessee argues that the Pr. CIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction and deemed the assessment orders as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. A search and seizure operation were conducted, and the assessment was framed. The declared income vis-à-vis the income assessed carrying stark difference, the Pr. CIT issued a show cause notice and picked the issue regarding the assessee being a beneficial owner of shares in a private entity, invoking provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act.

The Pr. CIT dismissed the assessee’s claim that no incriminating material was found, and the decision in the case of Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 applied.

The Tribunal considering various decisions and views concluded that when two views were possible, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is unwarranted. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Malabar Industries Company 243 ITR 83, the Hon’ble Tribunal set aside the Pr. CIT’s order and restored the assessing officer’s order. (AY 2008-09 to 2011-12)