Commissioner of Income Tax vs Suresh Paul Bansal

The question of validity of proceedings taken u/s 263 of the income tax Act, 19651 (hereinafter referred to as ''the said Act'') is in issue in this appeal. In this case, the provision of section 263 of the said Act had been invoked by the Commissioner after reassessment proceedings u/s 147 had been concluded by the Assessing Officer. It has been pointed out that the reasons for reopening the assessment were the very same reasons for which the Commissioner had invoked jurisdiction u/s 263 of the said Act. The Tribunal also noted as a fact that the order sheet entry dated 13-2-2002 indicated that the Assessing Officer in the course of reassessment proceedings required the authorized representative to explain why the sale purchase transactions in respect of the mutual funds in question ought not to be regarded as speculative transactions. The Tribunal noted that after the assessee gave the explanation, the Assessing Officer was fully satisfied with the same and accordingly, she framed the assessment on 10-3-2003. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal held that the invocation of section 263 was not tenable in law. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner was set-aside. We see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. It may also be noted that in similar situations, orders passed by the Commissioner of income tax u/s 263 have been set-aside by the Tribunal and upheld by this Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vikram Aditya and Associates P. Ltd., and CIT v. Prudent Advisory Services (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 170 of 2007, dated 28-2-2007]. The SLP filed against the letter order has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) [CC No. 13518/2007] by virtue of the order dated 15-1-2008.

No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed.