Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (3) TMI 208

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ources. It filed its return of income on 26.9.2008 declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) on 16.12.2010 determining the total income at Rs. ' nil' after inter alia making the following disallowances. (a) u/s 40(a)(ia) ) Rs. 64,699.00 (b) u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) at Rs. 1,36,422/-. The Ld.CIT, Meerut revised this order on the ground that it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The grounds on which the Ld.CIT(A) revised the order are listed below. (a) The assessee did not maintain the books of accounts as prescribed u/s 44AA r.w. rule 6F(3). (b) The AO accepted the negligible profit of Rs. 4,35,875/- without making enquiry and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ground of revision is devoid of merit. 6.1. Similarly on the directions of the Ld.CIT given to the AO to verify the unsecured creditors, unsecured loans, the AO in his fresh assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act, did not draw any adverse inference. This direction of the Ld.CIT was in the nature of directing rowing enquiries. No specific finding was arrived at by the Ld.CIT that there was prejudice caused to the Revenue or that there was an error in the original order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thus this ground of revision is bad in law. 6.2. This leaves us with the grievance against the findings of the Ld.CIT, Meerut that the assessee was in error in not maintaining he records and books of accounts as presc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cial person does not have a body and, therefore, cannot be engaged in any profession. It can neither have an intellectual skill or any manual skill. We are also of the view that even taking a broader and a more comprehensive meaning of the term profession one cannot extend the same to the case of an incorporated company as being capable of carrying of a profession. The skill involved in carrying out professional activity is predominantly mental or intellectual rather than physical or manual. We are, therefore, of the view that the requirement of Rule 6F(3) cannot apply to a person which is an incorporated company. 11. Apart from the above, we also find the AO has not given any basis whatsoever for rejecting, the books of account of the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . vs. CIT, 354 ITR 35 (AP) the Hon'ble A.P. High Court had considered a number of judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts and culled out the following principles that govern the powers of the Ld.CIT u/s 263 of the Act. "From the above decisions, the following principles as to exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act can be culled out: (a) The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions namely : (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) ) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent-if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... missioner not to exercise his suo motu revisional powers unless supported by adequate reasons for doing so ; that if a query is raised during the course of the scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, which was was answered to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, but neither the query nor the answer were reflected in the assessment order, this would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer called for interference and revision. (e) The Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to start Fishing and roving inquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded; that the Department cannot be permitted to begin fresh litigation because of new views they entertain on facts or new versions whic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates