2010 (2) TMI 75 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 one Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma had received compensation for the land at village Tughlakabad and Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma had transferred 50% of such compensation to the assessee at a sum of Rs 27,00,000/- only, whereas the compensation granted by the Supreme Court in relation to the said land was Rs 1.82 crore - . It was further noticed by the CIT that the TDS deducted on the compensation had also been transferred by the said Ashok Kumar Sharma in the name of the assessee. The CIT came to a conclusion that credit of TDS can be transferred mainly to a person who is acting as agent or representative of the entitled person, and that such issues had not been examined by the Assessing Officer. The CIT, therefore, came to a conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and deserved to be set aside. The assessment framed was, therefore, reopened under Section 263 of the said Act. - Before the Tribunal it was the case of the assessee that the compensation received by him on purchase of the award was offered for tax under the head capital gains . ITAT quashed the order passed u/s 263 by the CIT held that - , it is apparent that the Tribunal arrived at a conclusive finding that, though the assessment order does not patently indicate that the issue in question had been considered by the Assessing Officer, the record showed that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind. Once such application of mind is discernable from the record, the proceedings under Section 263 would fell into the area of the Commissioner having a different opinion. order of ITAT sustained

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal by Revenue against ITAT order for assessment year 2003-04
- CIT's notice under Section 263 regarding compensation transfer and TDS credit
- Tribunal's consideration of Assessing Officer's application of mind in assessment order
- Comparison with Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd case
- High Court's decision on the Tribunal's findings and dismissal of appeal

Issue 1: Appeal by Revenue against ITAT order for assessment year 2003-04
The appeal by the Revenue was against the ITAT order for the assessment year 2003-04. The CIT issued a notice under Section 263 regarding the transfer of compensation and TDS credit related to a land transaction. The CIT found the Assessing Officer's order erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue's interest, leading to the reopening of the assessment under Section 263.

Issue 2: CIT's notice under Section 263 regarding compensation transfer and TDS credit
The CIT issued a notice under Section 263 based on the Assessing Officer's proposal, highlighting discrepancies in compensation transfer and TDS credit related to a land transaction. The CIT concluded that the Assessing Officer had not thoroughly examined the issue, leading to the assessment being reopened under Section 263.

Issue 3: Tribunal's consideration of Assessing Officer's application of mind in assessment order
The Tribunal analyzed whether the Assessing Officer had applied his mind in the assessment order, even though it was not explicitly stated. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had requested relevant details from the assessee, who had provided necessary documents and explanations. Despite the lack of explicit findings in the assessment order, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer had considered the relevant material, leading to the quashing of the CIT's order under Section 263.

Issue 4: Comparison with Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd case
The High Court referred to the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd, emphasizing the importance of assessing whether there was an application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Court highlighted the distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry, stating that inadequate inquiry does not warrant intervention under Section 263 if there was some application of mind evident from the record.

Issue 5: High Court's decision on the Tribunal's findings and dismissal of appeal
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that, despite the lack of explicit indication in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the relevant material. The Court concluded that the Commissioner having a different opinion did not justify intervention under Section 263. Citing the decision in M/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd case, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.