2017 (9) TMI 185 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - valuation of stock - both the conditions namely order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudiced to the interest of the Revenue must be satisfied- Held that - Admittedly, in the present case earlier a survey action was carried out on the respondents on 20/02/2009 and thereafter regular assessment was made under Section 143(3) on 25/11/2011. It is also admitted that the physical stock as on 20/02/2009 was taken by the Assessing Officer, which is available on record. When such physical verification of stocks was carried out during the period of regular assessment the question of now valuing the stock and adding 10% for every annum is not at all justified. The manner of such estimate of stock on the basis of last year G.P. of 10% as again the books which were accepted by the Assessing Officer earlier cannot be accepted. The learned Tribunal as such rightly found that the question of taking the impugned action in terms of Section 263 of the said Act would not at all be justified. When an Assessing Officer has proceeded in a particular manner and the Assessing Officer has followed one of the permissible processes in law which has resulted in loss of revenue, it cannot be said to be prejudiced to the revenue and as such, we find there is no substantial question of law which arises in the present appeal.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant was unable to point out in what manner the assessment by Assessing Officer was erroneous. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding Assessment Year 2009-10.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Interpretation of the conditions for invoking powers under Section 263 of the Act.
4. Assessment process and scrutiny by the Assessing Officer.
5. Acceptance of stock valuation and assessment methodology.
6. Determination of whether the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
7. Application of legal precedents and judgments to the case.
8. Conclusion on the absence of substantial questions of law in the appeal.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2009-10, where the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer.

2. The main contention was regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, with the appellant arguing that the conditions for invoking this power were fully satisfied, while the respondent contended that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue.

3. The Tribunal highlighted the need for both conditions of an order being erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue to be met for invoking powers under Section 263. It emphasized that if one condition is absent, the provision may not be lawfully invoked.

4. The assessment process and scrutiny by the Assessing Officer were thoroughly examined, with the Tribunal noting that the queries raised during scrutiny were satisfactorily answered by the assessee, and the assessment order was passed accordingly.

5. The Tribunal found that the valuation of stock and assessment methodology adopted by the Assessing Officer were acceptable, as the physical stock verification was conducted, and the value of stocks as per the accounts of the assessee was accepted without any assessment.

6. It was determined that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue, as the assessment process was under due scrutiny and the clarification provided by the assessee was accepted.

7. Legal precedents and judgments, such as the case of CIT v/s Gabriel India and Malbar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Income-tax, were referred to in analyzing the case and determining the application of Section 263 of the Act.

8. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there were no substantial questions of law in the appeal, as the conditions specified under Section 263 were not satisfied, and the impugned action was found to be unsustainable. The appeal was dismissed based on the findings of the Tribunal and the absence of perversity in its decision.