2014 (1) TMI 641 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of revision order u/s 263 Held that - The provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer and it is only when an order is erroneous then the section will be attracted - The AO did not discuss/consider various issues pointed out by the Ld CIT in his revision order - the decision taken by Ld CIT in setting aside the assessment order on the impugned issues is in accordance with the law - The Ld CIT has directed the assessing officer to do the assessment on the lines discussed by him - Such a direction infringes with the power entrusted to the assessing officer by the Statute Partly allowed in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging validity of revision order passed by Ld. CIT.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin was against the order passed by the Ld. CIT, challenging the validity of the revision order for the assessment year 2005-06. The Ld. CIT found the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on various issues related to depreciation, income inclusion, disallowances, and other matters. The Ld. CIT set aside the assessment order and directed the assessing officer to re-do the assessment, leading to the appeal by the assessee.

Legal Interpretation:
The Appellate Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT, emphasizing the scope of Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The section empowers the Commissioner to intervene if the order passed by the Assessing Officer is considered erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. The Tribunal highlighted that the revision proceeding cannot be initiated on issues where the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view after examination and application of mind. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case was reiterated, stating that an assessment order passed without the application of mind would be considered erroneous.

Precedent and Rulings:
The Tribunal also cited the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Toyoto Motor Corporation case, affirming that proceedings before the AO must be supported by reasons, as they are quasi-judicial in nature. The Delhi High Court upheld the revision order passed by Ld. CIT under Section 263, a decision later approved by the Supreme Court. These rulings underscored the significance of reasoned decisions by the Assessing Officer in quasi-judicial proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal found that the issues highlighted by the Ld. CIT could impact tax computation and deemed the assessment orders prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. While acknowledging the validity of setting aside the assessment order, the Tribunal modified the direction given to the assessing officer. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to re-adjudicate the issues in accordance with the law, without being bound by the views expressed in the revision order. Consequently, the appeal by the assessee was partly allowed, emphasizing the importance of a thorough and reasoned assessment process in line with legal provisions.