9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of statement furnished by the Assessee by means of verification with account books. The Commissioner has rightly held that assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner in exercise of power conferred by Section 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961. Commissioner has rightly vide impugned order remanded the case to the Assessment Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with law in terms of remand order dated 30.1.2009, passed by the Tribunal in appeal. - Decided against assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 28 of 2013, Income Tax Appeal No. - 29 to 32 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 26-8-2015 - Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla And Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan, JJ. For the Appellant : Ashish Raj Shukla, R. B. Shukla For the Respondent : Ghanshyam Chaudhary, Alok Mathur ORDER The above five appeals have been filed by the Assessee U. P. Forest Corporation, 21/475, Indira Nagar, Lucknow under section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common judgment order dated 27.8.2013, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in five Income Tax Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Act 1961 on the ground that it does contain detail discussion, is not warranted by law. Learned counsel for the assessee -appellant placed reliance upon Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income -tax vs. Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd., reported in [2015] 372 ITR 310 (All) and contended that the impugned order passed by Income-tax Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act is illegal and without jurisdiction and the Tribunal has committed illegality of substantial nature in upholding impugned orders of Commissioner. Learned counsel for Assessee-Appellant contended that following judicial pronouncements rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad were referred and placed before the Tribunal but the Tribunal did not follow ratio of decisions referred: 1. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd; vs. Income Tax Officer , reported in (1960) 40 ITR 618 (SC), 2. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kamla Town Trust, reported in (1992) 198 ITR 191 (Alld), 3. K. N. Agarwal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (1991) 189 ITR 769, 4. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Max India Ltd. Reported in (200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 are allowed for statistical purposes while I.T.A. No. 800/Luc/04 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Section 11 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 reads as follows: 11. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income- (a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India, and, where any such income is accumulated or set apart for application to such purposes in India, to the extent to which the income so accumulated or set apart is not in excess of (fifteen) per cent of the income from such property. (b) Income derived from property held under trust in part only for such purposes, the trust having been created before the commencement of this Act, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India; and, where any such income is finally set apart for income so set apart is not in excess of (fifteen) per cent of the income from such property; (C) income (derived) from property held under trust- (I) cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o of Appeal is a notice, issued by the Assessment Officer in pursuance of remand order dated 30.1.2009, passed by the Tribunal. By this notice the Assessment Officer has required assessee-appellant to furnish documents and written submission in support of his claim and has fixed date 23.12.2009 for the said purpose. Admittedly, said notice was served on assessee on 23.12.2009 and assessee appellant filed reply of said notice on 29.12.2009 (Annexure No. 8 to the Memo of Appeal) in which he submitted detailed statements for computation of income with reference to Section 11 of the Income-tax Act but simultaneously submitted that Sri Vinod, Accounts Officer who is conversant with the facts and accounts of the Corporation is on leave upto 18th January, 2010. If books of accounts or any detail based thereon is required, the date of hearing may be fixed after 18th of January, 2010. But the Assessment Officer did not adjourn the case and passed assessment order on the same day i.e. on 29.12.2009. The Assessment Officer has not verified the statement given by assessee with account books of assessee as account books were not available on that day. There is no mention in Assessment Order its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-tax Officer (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court as well as in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Kamla Town Trust (supra) Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad has held that the Assessment Officer is bound to comply with the directions of the Tribunal. In the case of K. N. Agarwal vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) High Court, Allahabad has held that Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked to set aside assessment order passed by Income-tax Officer in compliance of judgment of the Tribunal or High Court. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Mahendra Kumar Bansal (supra) High Court, Allahabad has held as under: We are of the considered opinion that merely because the Income-tax Officer had not written lengthy order, it would not establish that the assessment order passed under section 143 (3)/148 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue without bringing on record specific instances,... In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Max India Ltd. (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt has observed as under: ....if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and responded to by the assessee, the mere fact that it is not dealt with in the assessment order would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it. Ratio laid down in above pronouncements, are not helpful to assessee-appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case, as in present case the Assessment Officer has not complied with direction of the Tribunal contained in Remand Order dated 30.1.2009. He has not examined the statistical statement furnished by the Assessee and has not verified the same with account books. He has accepted statement furnished by the Assessee without examination and verification. Learned counsel for the appellant further referred following judicial pronouncements before us: (1) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Paul Brothers, reported in (1995) 216, ITR, 548; (2) Prudential Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Director of Income Tax and another, reported in (2010) 324, ITR, 381; (3) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Palghat Shadi Mahal Trust reported in (1995) 212, ITR, page 287; (4) Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax and another vs. A.L.N. Rao ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
