CIT Vs. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D.D. Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant. The instant Income Tax Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.8.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench A, Lucknow in ITA No. 230/LKW/2011 for the Assessment Year 2007 -08, whereby the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the learned CIT inter alia on the ground that the CIT while exercising revisional powers under section 263 of the Income -tax Act can call for and examine the record of any proceeding, if he considers that any order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Therefore, it is only the Commissioner of Income -tax, who has to apply his mind after examining the record of any proceeding and his satisfaction is must, whereas in the instant case, a finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the CIT has nowhere recorded his satisfaction, but it was the satisfaction of Income -tax Officer (Technical), who is not competent to revise order under section 263 of the Act. The said order is impugned in the instant appeal.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the provisions of Section 292(bb), it is not open for the assessee to raise an objection with regard to the proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner of insofar as he had participated in the proceedings and tendered his reply. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality. He has relied upon the cases of CIT v. Electro House : (1971) 82 ITR 824(SC) and Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT : (1970) 76 ITR 496(SC).

(3.) CONSIDERED the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and order. To adjudicate the matter, it is imperative to have a look into the provisions of Section 299BB and 263(1) of the Act, which read as under: -