Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 393 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAMRevision u/s 263 - order erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue - Held that:- Unless the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot assume the 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 interests of the Revenue are co-exist. In the present case, the order passed by the Assessing Officer neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as the Assessing Officer has considered all the issues and after considering the details furnished by the assessee rejected the books of account and estimated the net profit from the business. Once the net profit is estimated from the business, the question of referring to the books of account to revise the assessment order is not justified. It is the general presumption of law that the Assessing Officer has considered all the details before completion of assessment and the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot presume that enquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer is insufficient and also the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind, unless the Commissioner of Income-tax proves that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous. In this case, the Commissioner of Income-tax never pointed out any specific instance of erroneous decision taken by the Assessing Officer before completion of assessment. Without pointing out any defects in the assessment order, simply directing the Assessing Officer to cause further enquiries on the presumption that the enquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer are insufficient is not permissible under the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act dated March 26, 2013 is not erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee
|