9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1743 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - CIT-A non exercising his own discretion and judgment - Held that - The order of the Assessing Officer may be brief and cryptic but that by itself is not sufficient reason to hold that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It is for the Commissioner to point out as to what error was committed by the Assessing Officer in taking a particular view. In the case in hand, the Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to point out error in the assessment order. For invoking revisionary powers the Commissioner of Income Tax has to exercise his own discretion and judgment. Here the Commissioner of Income Tax has invoked the provisions of section 263 at the mere suggestion of the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, without exercising his own discretion and judgment. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vinay Pratap Thacker Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2013 (2) TMI 838 - ITAT MUMBAI) has set aside the order of Commissioner of Income Tax passed u/s. 263 on the ground that the Commissioner of Income Tax had not used his own discretion and judgment in assuming the revisional jurisdiction. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Merits of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary issue in this case is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) correctly invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the CIT erred in invoking this jurisdiction without any substantive material. The CIT issued a show-cause notice based on the proposal from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), which highlighted deficiencies in the assessment order. The CIT's notice claimed that the assessment order was passed without proper enquiry, thus being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal observed that for invoking Section 263, the CIT must independently examine the records and form an opinion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this case, the CIT merely reproduced the deficiencies pointed out by the DCIT without exercising independent judgment. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT must apply his own mind and cannot rely solely on the suggestions of the DCIT. This lack of independent application of mind by the CIT rendered the invocation of Section 263 invalid. 2. Merits of the Order Passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT): The assessee argued that the CIT failed to provide any findings on the merits of the issues raised. The CIT's show-cause notice and subsequent order did not point out specific errors in the assessment order but rather stated that the assessment was done without proper enquiry. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had indeed made enquiries during the original assessment proceedings, as evidenced by the detailed questionnaire and the notings recorded by the AO. The Tribunal further observed that the CIT's order lacked a detailed analysis of how the AO's findings were erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The CIT's reliance on the DCIT's proposal without independent verification and reasoning was insufficient to justify the revisionary powers under Section 263. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents, including the decisions of the Patna Bench and Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, which held that the CIT must independently apply his mind and cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 263 merely on the ground of inadequate enquiry. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT's order did not meet the requirements of Section 263, as it was based on the DCIT's proposal without independent examination and reasoning. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the CIT improperly invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 without independent examination and reasoning. The CIT's order was based on the DCIT's proposal, lacking independent application of mind. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the assessee.
|
