9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Scope of exercise of powers under section 263
Analysis: The appeal raised a crucial question regarding the scope of exercise of powers under section 263. The Commissioner had initially passed an order under section 263 concerning an assessment completed under section 143(3) and section 144B, making additions related to various cash credits. Subsequently, upon appeal, the ITO was directed to conduct a fresh assessment allowing the assessee to prove the genuineness of the cash credits. In the new assessment, the ITO accepted the genuineness of the credits. However, the Commissioner, after notice to the assessee and considering its reply, passed an order under section 263, questioning the genuineness of the cash credits based on various discrepancies and lack of proper inquiries by the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that the ITO had already accepted the genuineness of interest payments in the original assessment, and in the subsequent assessment, efforts were made to establish the genuineness of the credits through statements and affidavits of creditors and their legal representatives. The assessee argued that the revisional action was unnecessary as all possible steps had been taken by the ITO earlier. On the contrary, the Departmental Representative highlighted the cursory nature of the ITO's order and supported the Commissioner's revisional order, citing specific directions given for investigating the genuineness of the credits. The Departmental Representative relied on legal precedents to assert the Commissioner's authority to direct proper investigations in cases where errors prejudicial to revenue interests were identified. During the proceedings, the assessee's counsel presented evidence to support the genuineness of the credits, including details of land holdings, crops, and payment methods. The counsel contested the Commissioner's characterization of land as fallow, emphasizing that cultivation history was not definitively disproven. Ultimately, the Tribunal observed that the ITO had made efforts to inquire into the genuineness of the credits, recording detailed statements and obtaining affidavits even from legal representatives of deceased creditors. The Tribunal acknowledged that not all inquiries suggested by the Commissioner had been conducted, but questioned the necessity of the revisional order given the time lapse, evidentiary challenges, and lack of fault on the assessee's part. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner's exercise of revisional powers was discretionary, and in this case, the passage of time and previous remands did not warrant further revisional action. Consequently, the Commissioner's order was set aside, and the ITO's order was reinstated, allowing the appeal.
|
