HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 50/2019 Hari Ram Yadav, 302, Tiwara Bus Stand, Behind Government School, Umrain, Alwar In State Of Rajasthan Appellant Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Alwar Having Its Address At Aayakar Bhawan, Moti Doongri Road, Alwar 301001 In State Of Rajasthan Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment 19/07/2019 1. Assessee in appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 questioned decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which upheld Commissioner s order under Section 263. 2. brief facts are that Assessing Officer (AO), by original scrutiny assessment order under Section 143(3) made on 28.03.2016, assessed returns of appellant at `21,03,840/-. On ground that order of AO was erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue, Commissioner caused notice to be issued to assessee and after considering reply, made order under Section 263. This became subject matter of appeal to ITAT. 3. In appeal grounds urged were, firstly that notice under Section 263 was not issued by proper authority but by AO and, secondly that in fact revisional power could not have been exercised because in original scrutiny assessment due care and enquries had been made by AO. ITAT however, rejected both contentions. (2 of 2) [ITA-50/2019] 4. Learned Counsel reiterated his submissions and grounds urged in support of appeal. It was argued that CIT in fact did not issue notice, as is evident from copy produced on record; instead it was issued by AO. Learned Counsel urged that such course is not only irregular but contrary to mandate of Section 263. It was next contended that AO, as matter of fact, in present case, had diligently made enquries (about advances received against sale of land in respect of about 72 purchasers). It was submitted that AO in fact test checked veracity of this amount by issuing notice to about 6 to 7 parties. 5. This Court has considered submissions. 6. ITAT exhaustively dealt with assessee s contentions, and referred to latest decision of Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan, (2016) 384 ITR 200 which referred to different shades of powers conferred upon authorities under Income Tax Act. If one may add defect in law and of analyses of facts by AO, in first instance, is curable by Commissioner, provided notice under Section 263, if validly exercised, in present case. 7. This Court is of opinion that grounds listed in notice, constituted reasonable and valid rationale for invoking revisional power. As far as other grounds are concerned, this Court is of opinion that ITAT s decision cannot be faulted. notice itself stated that Principal Commissioner had directed its issuance- AO appears to have signed it merely in his ministerial capacity. ITAT also looked into record of case while returning its findings. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises. 8. appeal is accordingly dismissed. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ Kamlesh Kumar-NAVAL KISHOR /1 Hari Ram Yadav v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax