9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of CIT under section 263 of the IT Act to review assessments made under section 143(1). 2. Failure of the ITO to conduct necessary inquiries before finalizing assessments. 3. Validity of CIT's decision to set aside assessments and direct the ITO to reframe them. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with two appeals filed by the assessee against the CIT's order under section 263 of the IT Act for assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The CIT found the assessments to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue due to lack of proper inquiries by the ITO. The CIT directed the ITO to reframe the assessments after obtaining necessary information from the assessee. The appeals were disposed of together as they involved common grounds arising from a consolidated order of the Commissioner for convenience. 2. The assessee and her representative did not appear for the hearing, leading to the appeals being disposed of ex parte. The Departmental Representative assisted the Tribunal in the proceedings. The facts of the case revealed that the ITO accepted the incomes returned by the assessee without conducting any inquiries or investigations, even after issuing notices under section 148 for the two assessment years. 3. The CIT found discrepancies in the assessment records, such as incomplete details about properties constructed by the assessee, loans raised without specifying the lenders, and lack of information on the location of properties. Despite the CIT's directions for inquiries and information gathering, the ITO completed the assessments summarily. The CIT set aside the assessments, citing them as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue's interest, and instructed the ITO to reframe them after proper inquiries. 4. The Departmental Representative argued that the CIT had the authority to review assessments made under section 143(1) and direct the ITO to reframe them if found erroneous. The representative emphasized the necessity for the ITO to conduct inquiries, especially after issuing notices under section 148, to ensure accurate assessments. Legal precedents were cited to support the CIT's jurisdiction in invoking section 263 for such cases. 5. The Tribunal acknowledged the Departmental Representative's submissions and reviewed the case records. It was noted that the assessee's returns indicated property income and interest payments without providing essential details. The ITO's failure to conduct necessary inquiries despite issuing notices under section 148 was deemed a critical oversight. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT's decision to set aside the assessments and direct the ITO to reframe them after obtaining comprehensive information from the assessee. 6. Citing the observations of the Delhi High Court in a relevant case, the Tribunal emphasized the ITO's duty to investigate cases that warrant further inquiries, even if the initial returns appear in order. As the ITO did not fulfill this duty in the present case, the CIT's decision to set aside the assessments was deemed justified. The Tribunal concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the CIT's order in this matter. 7. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed, affirming the CIT's decision to set aside the assessments and instruct the ITO to reframe them after conducting necessary inquiries.
|
