9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 638 - HC - Income TaxSetting aside of order passed by CIT u/s 263 by holding that Commissioner has not furnished any opinion on any of the issues raised in his order u/s 263 - CIT(A) exercised revisionary powers u/s 263 on ground that order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of improper and inadequate scrutiny by the A.O - Held that - A perusal of the assessment order passed u/s 143 clearly shows that none of the issues as has been noticed by the CIT had been considered and analysed by AO. Further, it has not been discussed by the AO as to how and why the returned income of Rs. 8,53,480/- was accepted against the surrendered income of Rs. 12,00,000/- by the assessee. The assessee was required to justify that surrendered income had to be reduced to declared income due to post surrender losses. Though no specific format is prescribed for passing an assessment order, yet in the facts, the circumstances and the basis thereof were required to be dealt with by the AO. Matter is remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh - Decided against Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Exercise of revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-Tax Act by the CIT. 2. Legality of the Tribunal's decision in setting aside the CIT's order under Section 263. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Exercise of Revisional Powers under Section 263 by the CIT: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the CIT was justified in exercising revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-Tax Act. The CIT, in his order dated 26.6.2008, held that the assessment framed by the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The CIT identified several issues that were not properly scrutinized by the assessing officer, including: (A) G.P. Rate Discrepancy: The CIT noted that the G.P. rate for the assessment year 2004-05 was only 2.45%, compared to 4.08% in the assessment year 2002-03. The assessing officer accepted the lower G.P. rate without adequate verification. (B) Electricity Expenses: The CIT observed that the electricity expenses per unit of goods manufactured were significantly higher in the assessment year 2004-05 compared to the previous year, yet the assessing officer did not verify this discrepancy. (C) Pre-Survey and Post-Survey G.P. Rate: The CIT pointed out that the G.P. rate was 2.33% in the pre-survey period and 3.25% in the post-survey period, which required verification to determine if the trading results were manipulated. (D) Valuation of Closing Stock: The CIT highlighted that the closing stock of raw material was valued lower than the average purchase price, and the assessing officer failed to examine this issue. (E) Deduction on Account of Theft: The CIT criticized the assessing officer for allowing a deduction of Rs. 3 lakhs based on a police letter without thoroughly examining the details of the FIR, court orders, and the actual irrecoverability of the stolen sum. 2. Legality of the Tribunal's Decision in Setting Aside the CIT's Order: The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order, arguing that the CIT had not provided a definite and clear opinion on how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the CIT merely directed the assessing officer to re-examine the issues without specifying how the original assessment was unsustainable in law or fact. Tribunal's Observations: The Tribunal found that on each issue raised by the CIT, the assessee had provided explanations similar to those given during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT did not render a clear finding on why the assessment order was erroneous. For instance, regarding the deduction of Rs. 3 lakhs for theft, the Tribunal noted that the CIT did not provide a finding on how the assessment order was erroneous, merely directing a re-examination by the assessing officer. Court's Analysis and Conclusion: The High Court found that the Tribunal failed to consider the detailed issues identified by the CIT. The assessment order did not address the discrepancies and issues highlighted by the CIT, such as the acceptance of the returned income against the surrendered income and the lack of verification of various expenses and G.P. rates. The Court held that the Tribunal's order could not be sustained as it did not appreciate the CIT's detailed observations. Consequently, the Court answered the questions of law in favor of the revenue and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the CIT's order under Section 263. The CIT had valid grounds for exercising revisional powers, and the Tribunal failed to address the substantive issues raised. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.
|
