9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. Further, the assessee has filed documentary evidence, indicating, the date of transaction, as well as the date of retirement of the said partner. Right in leasehold property in question has already been sold much before the date of retirement & had nothing to do with retirement of partner & do not fall with in the purview of Distribution of assets. It is well settled proposition that, where AO has taken legally permissible view, CIT cannot acquire revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 merely because another view is possible - appeal of assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 433/CHD/2010 - - - Dated:- 24-5-2012 - Ms.SUSHMA CHOWLA, SHRI MEHAR SINGH, JJ. Appellant by : Shri Ajay Jain Respondent Shri Manjeet Singh ORDER P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with retirement of partner do not fall with in the purview of Distribution of assets . 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax -1 Ludhiana has wrongly interpreted the sale of property as distribution of assets merely on suspicion surmises without any basis concrete evidence. 5. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax -1 Ludhiana has erred by forming an opinion that the Fair Market value of property in question will be more in view of bifurcation charges @ Rs.200 per square yard intimated by PSIEC therefore he acted merely on suspicion surmises order of Learned CIT -1 Ludhiana is not firm to prove that the order of assessing officer was erroneous was prejudicial to interest of revenue also failed to apprecia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istribution of assets, on dissolution of firm or otherwise, within the meaning of Section 45(4) of the Act. Ld. 'AR', further mentioned that AO had made detailed enquiry, by way of issuing questionnaire, on the subject matter, which is the core issue u/s 263 of the order. He referred to page 10 11 of the Paper Book and these pages of the Paper Book are photo copies of the order sheet entries, maintained by the AO. The AO, vide order sheet entry dated 25.07.2007 asked specific questions about the details of profit on sale of property. Similarly, on 8.8.2007 at page 11 of the Paper Book, the AO asked for the photo copy and details of factory premises and details of capital loss of land etc. Similarly, vide order sheet entry dated 20.09.2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the present case, provisions of Section 45(4) are being avoided. The observations of CIT, clearly indicate that he invoked the doctrine of lifting the vei l. The doctrine of substance or form is generally applicable to the assessment proceedings and not the revisionary proceedings. Further, the AO, has considered the issue in question, applied his mind and did not invoke the provisions of Section 45(4) of the Act. The issue, raised by the CIT, is based on the foundational fact that AO, failed to invoke the provisions of Section 45(4) of the Act. In view of this, the CIT is considering the issue on merit, by invoking the provisions of Section 263, which is not permissible. The CIT, further, observed that as far as change of opinion is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to the decisions, whi le adjudicating the issue, in the case of Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. V CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (S.C) ; CIT V Ralson Industries Ltd. (2007) 228 ITR 322 (S.C) and CIT V R.M.Chidambaram Pi lai (1997) 106 ITR 292 (S.C) and decision of the Chandigarh Tribunal , in the case of India Spings Possessing Ltd. V CIT (2007) 110 TTJ 471 (Chd) . Ld. 'DR' placed reliance on the decision, in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra), to support his contentions. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced hereunder : A bare reading of Section 263 of the Income- tax Act,1961, makes i t clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suomotu under it, is that the order of the Income- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, for example, when an Income- tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income- tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income- tax Officer is unsustainable in law. 7. A bare perusal of the decision relied upon by the ld. 'DR' , reveals that this decision has been duly considered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
