1990 (5) TMI 50 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Revisional order passed by the Commissioner under s. 263 based on estimated receipts and lack of maintained books of accounts.
2. Commissioner's directive for the ITO to consider various factors in determining the assessee's income.
3. Assessee's contention regarding due enquiries made by the ITO and reliance on previous Tribunal orders.
4. Departmental Representative's argument on the purpose of revisional powers and errors in ITO's assessment.
5. Tribunal's consideration of the net income and comparison with previous years.
6. Assessment of whether the ITO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad dealt with an appeal against the revisional order passed by the Commissioner under section 263. The Commissioner's order was based on the discovery of a diary and files during a search, leading to estimated receipts for specific assessment years due to the lack of maintained books of accounts by the assessee. The Commissioner directed the ITO to consider various factors, including the number of patients treated and medicines prescribed, in determining the assessee's income.

The assessee contended that the ITO had conducted due enquiries and applied his mind, citing previous Tribunal orders confirming the net income for the relevant assessment years. The Departmental Representative argued that the purpose of revisional powers was to rectify errors by the ITO, emphasizing discrepancies in the gross income for the current year compared to previous years.

The Tribunal considered the net income for the current assessment year and found it comparable to previous years, thus determining no prejudice to the Revenue. Despite the assessee's argument regarding the ITO's diligence, the Tribunal held that the question of error in the ITO's order must be objectively determined. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order under section 263, concluding that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

In summary, the judgment highlighted the importance of objective assessment in determining errors in the ITO's order, considering the net income and previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the Commissioner's order was based on the lack of proven error or prejudice to the Revenue in the assessment.