9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer without complying with the procedure laid down in the pre 1989 section 144B is erroneous, but cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Similarly, an assessment order passed without obtaining approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as required by the pre-1989 section 52(2) cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The orders of the Assessing Officer may be brief and cryptic, but that by itself is not sufficient reason to brand the assessment orders as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Writing an order in detail may be a legal requirement, but the order not fulfilling this requirement, cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct in the assessment order passed by A.O. 2. That the Ld. CIT had mechanically applied the provisions of Section 263 without referring to the assessment order when A.O had meticulously referred to the various documents evidences and written submissions relied upon by him and had passed the order after due application of mind. 3. That the Ld. CIT had failed to categorically consider the objections raised during the proceedings before him and had failed to note that even in scrutiny of subsequent year the A.O. specifically noted that no contractors were engaged. 4. That the Ld. CIT had failed to apply his mind while passing the order since the order suffers from manifest error as regards designation, income, date of order etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee has paid labour charges of ₹ 66,42,355/- to a sub-contractor without making TDS u/s.194C. The payments should have been disallowed per provision u/s.40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as Tax had not been deducted at source. (c) Letters u/s. 133(6) were issue for verification of purchase related to financial year 2005-06. On perusal of the reply, it was seen that some of the parties procured their trade licences during financial year 2007-08. (d) No enquiry was made about the genuineness of TDS certificate before passing the order u/s.143(3). (e) The Bank Account statements of the Assessee were not obtained and examined. (f) The AO allowed the depreciation claim without verifying the bills/vouchers in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact and circumstances, we are of the view that section 263 of the Act postulates that the Commissioner can revise an order passed by the Assessing Officer only if (i) it is erroneous, and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If the order sought to be revised is not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revise it. For instance, an order of assessment Passed by an Assessing Officer without complying with the procedure laid down in the pre 1989 section 144B is erroneous, but cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Similarly, an assessment order passed without obtaining approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as required by the pre-1989 sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interests of the Revenue. Writing an order in detail may be a legal requirement, but the order not fulfilling this requirement, cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is for the Commissioner to point out as to what error was committed by the Assessing Officer in having reached the conclusion that the income has escaped assessment. The Commissioner having failed to point out any error, no error can be inferred from the orders of the Assessing Officer for the simple reason that they are bereft of details. If the order is not erroneous, then it cannot be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
