Revision u/s 263 initiated twice by PCIT on short-term capital loss from penny stock (Sulabh Engineering Services Ltd.). AO had already verified the genuineness of the transactions twice (original + reassessment). Judicial resistance to arbitrary or repetitive invocation of section 263 when the Assessing Officer has exercised due diligence and formed a reasoned opinion. The ITAT reiterated that the revisional authority must not act merely as a supervisory authority unless there is palpable error or lack of enquiry that renders the assessment order unsustainable in law.(AY. 2016-16) (ITA No. 2682/Mum/2024, Dated 11/03/2025)
Surplus Finvest Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT(Mum) (Trib)(UR)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Short term capital loss-Section 263 cannot be used just because the PCIT holds a different view-No finding of lack of enquiry or perversity in AO’s conclusion-Reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction cannot substitute AO’s discretion where AO acted judiciously.[S. 143(3)]
Leave a Reply