9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... like payment of sales commission to its sister concern - In this case the difference of stock worked out by the department during the course of survey and admitted by the assessee should have been added as income by the assessee in its return which was not shown by the assessee nor was added back by the A.O. concerned while finalization of assessment proceedings - CIT is justified in revising order u/s 263. - 271 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2010 - MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - by making certain additions by the assessing officer vide order dated 26.6.2001. The Commissioner of Income Tax [for short the CIT ] found that the assessee had not declared the excess stock of Rs. 1,24,004/- during the course of survey in its return of income and it did not include the said amount as additional income which was surrendered. The order passed by the assessing officer was found to be erroneous, inasmuch as the same was found to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because excess stock found during survey was to be treated as current year s income of the assessee-firm. The assessment order was consequently set aside by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act vide order dated 1.3.2004. The assessing officer was, thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the Revenue was that after the order of the revision passed under Section 263 by the CIT, the assessee had again surrendered additional income of Rs. 1,24,004/- on account of difference in stock during the course of fresh assessment which was finalized on 28.12.004, i.e. prior to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 28.2.2005 and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by the CIT was erroneous. Learned counsel for the assessee, on other hand, supported the order passed by the Tribunal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we find considerable weight in the submissions made by learned counsel for the Revenue. Learned counsel for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is case the difference of stock worked out by the department during the course of survey and admitted by the assessee should have been added as income by the assessee in its return which was not shown by the assessee nor was added back by the A.O. concerned while finalization of assessment proceedings. 6. In view of above, it is apparent that the assessment has been finalized without proper verification of the results declared. The assessment being erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue deserves to be set aside and is restored to the A.O. for completing the assessment carefully after examining the material on record. In view of the above, it can not be held that the Tribunal was justified in holding tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
