1996 (11) TMI 102 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) properly accepted the assessee's claim of speculative transactions in shares.
2. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) was justified in invoking u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act to set aside the assessment order.

Summary:

Issue 1: Acceptance of Speculative Transactions Claim

The AO, in the assessment made u/s 143(3), referred to the assessee's explanation regarding speculative transactions in shares and the statement of speculation profits/losses for the period from 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1993. The AO called upon the assessee to explain the source of investment in shares and the nature of transactions, which the assessee did through a letter dated 24-11-1995. The AO accepted the assessee's explanation and completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 85,980.

Issue 2: Invocation of Section 263 by CIT

The CIT initiated proceedings u/s 263, stating that the AO accepted the assessee's claim without being satisfied about its correctness and without the assessee discharging the onus of proving the speculative nature of the transactions. The CIT found the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, directing the AO to reframe the assessment after further enquiries.

The assessee objected, arguing that complete details were provided, and the AO was satisfied with the explanation. The CIT, however, was not convinced and set aside the assessment, citing failure of the AO to apply his mind and make adequate enquiries.

Tribunal's Findings:

The Tribunal observed that the AO had made detailed enquiries, including examining seized materials, recording statements u/s 131, and attempting to verify the existence of M/s. Magnum Investments through an Inspector. The AO's acceptance of the assessee's explanation was based on these enquiries.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's view that no enquiry was conducted was incorrect. The AO had exercised his quasi-judicial power and arrived at a conclusion based on the enquiries made. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT's power u/s 263 is supervisory and not appellate, and cannot be used to substitute the CIT's judgment for that of the AO unless the AO's order is erroneous.

Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT was not justified in setting aside the assessment order merely because he disagreed with the AO's conclusion. The Tribunal canceled the CIT's order and allowed the appeal.