Revisional order under s. 263 quashed where AO's acceptance of exempt LTCG after enquiries held not erroneous/prejudicial; Pr. CIT cannot invoke jurisdiction merely on alleged inadequate enquiry without own verification or adverse material.

ORDER

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM :

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee seeking to assail the revisional order dated 26.02.2024 passed by Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi [“Pr. CIT(A)”] under s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] whereby the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed under s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2016-17 was sought to be set aside for denovo assessment in terms of supervisory jurisdiction.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 (hereinafter, referred as "PCIT") under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred as "the Act") is bad both in the eye of law and facts.

2. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s 263 by learned PCIT setting aside the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre ("AO") holding that the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, is void-ab-initio.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act by the learned PCIT setting aside the assessment order passed by the AO is illegal and invalid as the assessment order is neither 'erroneous' nor 'prejudicial to the interest of the revenue'.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned PCIT has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment order passed by the AO do not fall within the requirements of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act and hence said order cannot be deemed to be erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

5. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned PCIT has erred both on facts and in law in setting aside the order passed by the AO, without himself conducting the necessary enquiry alleged to have not been done by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings.

(ii) That the PCIT has erred in ignoring the settled position of law that where PCIT is of the view that the AO did not undertake any inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the PCIT to conduct such inquiry.

6.(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned PCIT has erred both on facts and in law in passing an order under section 263 of the Act solely for the purpose of substituting his own opinion on the concerned issues in place of the view adopted by the learned AO after independent application of mind.

(ii) That the above action of the PCIT is bad in the eye of law and facts ignoring the settled law that where the issues concerned are debatable issue or where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view which the PCIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

7. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned PCIT has erred in exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in setting aside the issue of long-term capital gain accrued on sale of shares which was duly scrutinized by the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act.

8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned PCIT has erred both on facts and in law in setting aside