9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest received. In our view, such finding of the assessing officer, assuming it to be erroneous cannot be rectified in proceedings under Section 154 of the Act on the ground that a mistake apparent on the face of the record had occurred in the assessment order inasmuch as the assessment order was passed by a process of reasoning and after applying its mind. Once an order has been given by a process of reasoning and assuming that two views are possible it still cannot be treated as a mistake apparent from the record. We also find that the order under Section 154 of the Act has been passed by the assessing officer on the dictates of the Commissioner. The assessing officer is a quasi-judicial authority and is required to apply its own mind and cannot function on the dictates and directions of another authority. Consequently, on this ground also, the order of the assessing authority under Section 154 of the Act cannot be sustained. In so far as the appeal filed by the Department is concerned, we are of the opinion, that the Commissioner of Income Tax had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 263 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax assumes jurisdiction under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng officer rejected the contention of the assessee and computed the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act after reducing the said interest from business profit. The assessee filed an appeal which was rejected. The Tribunal by its order dated 3.4.2006 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter again to the assessing authority for reconsideration on the question of interest earned on EEFCTDR under Section 10(15)(iv)(e) of the Act. Pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal, the assessing officer passed a fresh assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 11.2.2007 and granted exemption on interest earned by the assessee under Section 10(15)(iv)(e) of the Act. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order dated 3.3.2008 under Section 263 of the Act holding that the order of the assessing officer was pre-judicial to the interest of the revenue holding that the assessing officer had not made the inquiry as mandated by the Tribunal nor inquiry was conducted in conformity with the provisions of Section 10(15)(iv)(e) of the Act The Commissioner of Income Tax accordingly cancelled the assessment order and directed the assessing officer to carry out the fresh assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should not be cancelled as it was pre-judicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee filed his objection, and thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order dated 30.3.2001 under Section 263 of the Act setting aside the assessment order and directing the assessing officer to pass a fresh assessment order in the light of the direction contained therein. The assessee, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed by an order dated 22.4.2015 and the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Act set aside. The Department, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Act praying that a substantial question of law arises for consideration, namely, that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act, inasmuch as, the assessment order was inconsistent with the direction of the Tribunal passed in the earlier round of litigation. 6. In this backdrop we have heard Sri S.D.Singh, the learned senior counsel along with Sri Krishna Dev Vyas, the learned counsel for the assessee and Sri Ashok Kumar along with Sri Shubham Agarwal, the learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur view, such finding of the assessing officer, assuming it to be erroneous cannot be rectified in proceedings under Section 154 of the Act on the ground that a mistake apparent on the face of the record had occurred in the assessment order inasmuch as the assessment order was passed by a process of reasoning and after applying its mind. Once an order has been given by a process of reasoning and assuming that two views are possible it still cannot be treated as a mistake apparent from the record. 12. We also find that the order under Section 154 of the Act has been passed by the assessing officer on the dictates of the Commissioner. The assessing officer is a quasi-judicial authority and is required to apply its own mind and cannot function on the dictates and directions of another authority. Consequently, on this ground also, the order of the assessing authority under Section 154 of the Act cannot be sustained. 13. In so far as the appeal filed by the Department is concerned, we are of the opinion, that the Commissioner of Income Tax had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 263 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax assumes jurisdiction under Section 263 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
