Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 998 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAMRevision u/s 263 - correctness of building maintenance expenditure, interest and finance charges, pre-paid expenses, sales commission, re-payment of loans, advance against purchase of raw materials and payments made to specified persons u/s 40A(2)(b) - Held that:- Unless the order passed by the A.O.is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the CIT cannot assume jurisdiction to revise the assessment order, this is because the twin conditions i.e. the order is erroneous and the same is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue are co-exist. In the present case on hand, on perusal of the facts available on record, we find that the A.O. has conducted detailed enquiry and also examined all the issues pointed out by the CIT in this show cause notice. The assessee has explained each and every issue pointed out by the CIT with necessary evidences. The CIT, cannot assume jurisdiction to revise assessment order, once, assessee explained that it had filed all the details before the A.O. on the issues on which CIT wants further verification. It is the general presumption of law that, the A.O. has considered all the details before completion of assessment and the CIT cannot presume that the enquiries conducted by the A.O. is insufficient and also the A.O. has not applied his mind, unless CIT proves that the assessment order passed by the A.O. is erroneous. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.11.2011 is not erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee
|