9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 691 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue - Held that - CIT has passed the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act without considering the submissions made before him. All the issues raised by the CIT were raised by the Assessing Officer in his notice dated 22.02.2010 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and in reply to the same, the assessee filed all details which were verified by the Assessing Officer and after being satisfied, he passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 19.04.2010. Therefore, the order of the CIT u/s 263 should be cancelled. Thus it shall be just and fair to set aside the order of the CIT and restore the matter back to his file for adjudicating the issue afresh after proper appreciation of the submissions of the assessee by passing a speaking order on each of the issue raised in the notice issued u/s 263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction assumption under Section 263 of the Act. 2. Validity of the order under Section 263 of the Act. 3. Justification for setting aside the order under Section 143(3) of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction Assumption under Section 263 of the Act: The assessee contended that the Commissioner of Income-Tax (CIT) erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT issued a notice to the assessee highlighting discrepancies and lack of verification in the assessment order passed under Section 143(3). The CIT pointed out that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not call for details regarding various expenses and creditors, nor did he verify certain bank payments and receipts. The assessee responded by stating that all necessary details were submitted and verified during the assessment proceedings, and thus, the order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. Validity of the Order under Section 263 of the Act: The CIT held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to the AO's failure to verify and enquire into various items such as raw material expenses, diesel and fuel expenses, salary to staff, creditors' confirmations, and bank accounts. The CIT also noted discrepancies in contract receipts and the lack of TDS deduction on machinery and tractor rent payments. The assessee argued that all issues raised by the CIT were addressed during the assessment proceedings, and the AO had verified the details before passing the order under Section 143(3). The CIT's order was challenged on the grounds that it did not consider the submissions made by the assessee. 3. Justification for Setting Aside the Order under Section 143(3) of the Act: The CIT set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to conduct a de novo assessment after proper verification and enquiry. The assessee contended that the CIT passed the order without considering the detailed submissions and evidence provided during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the CIT failed to address the assessee's submissions and did not provide a reasoned order. The Tribunal held that the CIT cannot pass an order under Section 263 without properly considering and controverting the assessee's submissions. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remitted the matter back to the CIT for fresh adjudication. The CIT was directed to re-examine the issues after considering the assessee's submissions and pass a reasoned order. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, ensuring that the assessee is given a proper opportunity of hearing before any fresh adjudication. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the court on Friday, 09th January 2015, at Ahmedabad.
|
