2004 (9) TMI 70 - HC - Income Tax

Considering the report of the Valuation Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax initiated proceedings under section 263 on the ground that the assessment was erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue - 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the report of the Valuation Officer was not part of the record for the purposes of action under section 263? 2. Whether Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the Commissioner of Income-tax s order, holding it to be without jurisdiction and invalid? Held that Tribunal was not justified in limiting the record which was available before the Income-tax Officer at the time of assessment. The Commissioner was well within his jurisdiction to take into consideration the report of the Valuation Officer which was available to him at the time of examination for the purpose of initiating the proceeding under section 263(1)

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "record" under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the Commissioner of Income-tax's order under section 263(1) of the Act based on the report of the Valuation Officer.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of the term "record" under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of the term "record" under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had held that the report of the Valuation Officer was not part of the record for the purposes of action under section 263. However, the High Court disagreed with this interpretation. The High Court referred to the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 263, which defines "record" to include all records relating to any proceeding under the Act available at the time of examination by the Commissioner. The High Court noted that the Finance Act, 1989, had substituted the phrase "includes" with "shall include and shall be deemed always to have included." Citing the decision in CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53, the High Court emphasized that the Commissioner had the authority to consider not only the record of the proceeding but also the record relating to that proceeding available at the time of examination. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the Tribunal was incorrect in limiting the record available before the Income-tax Officer at the time of assessment.

Issue 2: Validity of the Commissioner of Income-tax's order under section 263(1) of the Act based on the report of the Valuation Officer
The second issue revolved around the validity of the Commissioner of Income-tax's order under section 263(1) of the Act, which was based on the report of the Valuation Officer. The Commissioner had initiated proceedings under section 263 on the ground that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The Tribunal had cancelled the Commissioner's order, stating that the report of the Valuation Officer was not part of the record at the time of the Income-tax Officer's assessment order. However, the High Court held that the Commissioner was well within his jurisdiction to consider the report of the Valuation Officer available at the time of examination for initiating proceedings under section 263(1) of the Act. Consequently, the High Court answered the questions of law in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment clarified the interpretation of the term "record" under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and upheld the validity of the Commissioner of Income-tax's order based on the report of the Valuation Officer.