9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. On non maintenance of books of accounts finding of the Ld.CIT is wrong. Maintenance of records and books as prescribed u/s 44 (GG)(AA) r.w.s. 6F(3) of the Act is applicable to only professionals. The assessee being a limited company, cannot be said to be carrying on any profession. The assessee company has maintained books of accounts as required under law. Thus the founda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 4,35,875/- without making enquiry and verification. (c) The AO did not call for details regarding additions in building of ₹ 67,51,365/- and regarding admissibility of depreciation, (d) Sundry creditors of ₹ 45,18,908/- and unsecured loans of ₹ 47,60,500/- were not enquired into properly. The Ld.CIT concluded as follows. (i) The books of accounts are rejected by invoking the provisions of S.145(3) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 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 prescribed u/s 44AA r.w. rule 6F(3) and the action of the Ld.CIT in rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the net receipts as well as the net profits. This finding of the Ld.CIT is wrong. Maintenance of records and books as prescribed u/s 44 (GG)(AA) r.w.s. 6F(3) of the Act is applicable to only professionals. The assessee being a limited company, cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofession. 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 assessee. There is no specific finding or reasons for rejecting the books of the assessee. The books of account of the assessee are duly audited and it was incumbent on the part of the AO before rejecting the books of accounts to point out specific defects therein. We are, therefore, of the view that the CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting this addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 erroneous but it is prejudicial to the Revenue-recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act. (b) Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. For example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment 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 which they present as to what should be the inference or proper inference either of the facts disclosed or the weight of the circumstance; that if this is permitted, litigation would have no end except when legal ingenuity is exhausted. (f) Whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
