2014 (1) TMI 1803 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - non application of mind by the Assessing Officer - Held that - In the present case, on a perusal of the original assessment order, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has accepted the return of income as shown by the assessee. It has not been brought on record before us by the assessee, as to what were the nature of queries raised by the Assessing Officer with regard to the various expenses debited in the Profit & Loss account specifically on the issues which has been raised by the learned Commissioner. If there is application of mind by the Assessing Officer after calling for the details and examining of record, then it can be held that the Assessing Officer has framed the assessment properly and in accordance with the law. In the present case, it has not been demonstrated before us that the Assessing Officer has raised queries on the issues raised by the learned Commissioner and called for the details for examining the relevant entries made in the books of account with reference to the evidence placed on record or otherwise there is no error in the issues raised in the show cause notice issued under section 263. Once that is so, the Commissioner (Appeals) is justified in canceling the assessment order under his revisionary jurisdiction under section 263. The facts and the reasoning given by the Commissioner for canceling the original assessment order inasmuch is erroneous inasmuch it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue appears to be justified. We do not find any merits in the contention raised by the learned Counsel that the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner is merely for carrying out roving and fishing enquiry, as the Commissioner has clearly pointed out the various discrepancies in the submissions made by the assessee before him in Para-4 and 5. Accordingly, we affirm the impugned order and the grounds raised by the assessee are treated as dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging order under section 263 for assessment year 2007-08.

Analysis:
1. The assessee, a partnership firm in automobile leaf springs manufacturing, filed a return for the assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer accepted the return income, but the Commissioner issued a show cause notice under section 263 citing discrepancies in labor and freight charges, expenses from a sister concern, and treatment of furnace purchases as capital expenditure.

2. The assessee responded, attributing discrepancies to computer errors and providing explanations for expenses. However, the Commissioner found the submissions lacking documentary evidence and noted the Assessing Officer's failure to verify the discrepancies. The Commissioner set aside the assessment order for a fresh examination of the highlighted issues.

3. The Assessing Officer, in the set aside proceedings, accepted most issues except for the sister concern expenses, making an ad-hoc disallowance. The assessee argued that the original assessment was not erroneous as the books were examined, and relied on a Tribunal decision. Conversely, the Departmental Representative contended that the original non-speaking order indicated a lack of examination, citing the Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the Commissioner's findings, noting the lack of examination by the Assessing Officer on specific expense discrepancies highlighted by the Commissioner. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper examination and enquiry by the Assessing Officer, finding the original assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision under section 263, dismissing the assessee's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision to set aside the assessment order, emphasizing the importance of proper examination by the Assessing Officer and rejecting the assessee's arguments against the order under section 263.