1. By way of this appeal, the assessee contest correctness of revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 as exercised by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-22, Mumbai, for Assessment Year 2014-15, vide order dated 26/03/2019. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:-
A. REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 ARE VOID AB INITIO, INVALID, BEYOND THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND DEVOID OF ANY LEGAL FORCE:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honorable Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-22 ('the learned CIT') failed to appreciate that the proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') were beyond the jurisdiction, void and of no legal effect in the Appellants case.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT erred in setting aside the Order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act by the learned Income Tax Officer-22(1)(3), Mumbai ('the AO') under section 263 of the Act by holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
3. The learned CIT failed to appreciate that the Appellant has disclosed fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment and that the original assessment was made by the then AO under section 143(3) of the Act after due and proper consideration of the same; which is evident from the Assessment Order u/s. 143(3) of the Act.
4. The learned CIT failed to appreciate that there was no failure on part of the Appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and all the material evidences were already on the record of department. Hence the issue of Notice under section 263 of the Act is bad in law being void ab-initio, invalid, beyond the authority of law and devoid of legal force.
5. In the view of above, the Order of the learned CIT be quashed, by holding it to be bad in law.
B. REASONS FOR REVISION ARE FOR REVIEWING AND RE-EXAMINING FACTS ALREADY EXAMINED AND ON RECORD OF DEPARTMENT:
6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT erred in invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 and setting aside the Assessment Order u/s.143(3) of the Act for reviewing and re-examining the facts, details, documents, evidences already examined by the AO, who had already made judgment based on the same and had passed the order of Assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. It is well settled that revision cannot be undertaken for re-examining and directing fresh inquiry due to change of opinion.
7. The learned CIT failed to appreciate the fact that the details, documents, evidences for which he has issued Notice under section 263 of the Act were already on the records of the Department. Further, the Order of learned CIT u/s.263 specifies that 'it was explained to the AR of that the AO had never examined the details furnished regarding Capital Gains claimed on SRK shares and the issue was side stepped because of the information of the Assessee filing under IDS'; which clearly conveys that the initiation of revision proceedings by the learned........