9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (7) TMI 354 - HC - Income TaxOrder which is erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue - Assessing Officer has taken a particular view on the basis of evidence produced before him. On the basis of the said material and materials which were collected by the CIT in revisional proceedings, the Commissioner has taken a different view since there is nothing on record to suggest that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable at law, in the revisional proceedings under Section 263, it is not open for the Commissioner to take such a different view - Commissioner s order u/s 263 is liable to be quashed and set aside
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition by ITAT. 2. Jurisdiction of CIT under Section 263. 3. Interpretation of "record" in Section 263(1). 4. Consideration of Supreme Court decisions by ITAT. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition by ITAT: The core issue was whether the ITAT was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,37,61,817/- enhanced by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT had initially issued a show-cause notice to the assessee, questioning the genuineness of sublet payments and the identity of sub-contractors, leading to the enhancement of the income determined by the Assessing Officer. The ITAT, after reviewing the evidence and the detailed replies submitted by the assessee, concluded that the order of the CIT was beyond jurisdiction and incorrect on merits. The ITAT found that the payments to sub-contractors were genuine, supported by affidavits, bank transactions, and tax returns of the sub-contractors, which were not refuted by contrary evidence. 2. Jurisdiction of CIT under Section 263: The CIT's jurisdiction under Section 263 was challenged. The CIT had held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to a lack of inquiry into sublet payments. However, the ITAT determined that the CIT exceeded his jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer had already conducted a thorough examination of the relevant details during the assessment proceedings. The ITAT emphasized that the CIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely because he holds a different view from the Assessing Officer, especially when the Assessing Officer's view is legally sustainable. 3. Interpretation of "Record" in Section 263(1): A significant legal question was the interpretation of the term "record" in Section 263(1). The ITAT interpreted "record" to mean the record as it stood at the time the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer, not at the time of examination by the Commissioner. The revenue argued that this interpretation was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works. However, the ITAT maintained its stance, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds that no substantial question of law arose from its order. 4. Consideration of Supreme Court Decisions by ITAT: The revenue contended that the ITAT failed to properly consider the Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works and Malabar Industrial Company Limited v. CIT. The ITAT, however, found that the facts of the case did not warrant a different conclusion. The ITAT relied on the principle that mere loss of revenue does not justify revision under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer's order is legally sustainable and supported by evidence. The ITAT also noted that the sub-contractors were assessed to tax, and their returns were accepted by the department, further supporting the genuineness of the transactions. Conclusion: The High Court, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, upheld the ITAT's decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The court agreed that the CIT's order under Section 263 was not justified as the Assessing Officer had conducted a proper inquiry, and the view taken was legally sustainable. The court also clarified that it did not endorse the ITAT's interpretation of "record" but found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the ITAT's findings on the merits and legality of the case were correct.
|
