TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rores in UTI mutual funds, wherein, dividend of ₹ 2.53 lakhs was claimed as exempt. It is also noted that during the year, fresh interest free unsecured loans were raised, amounting to ₹ 3.74 cores from Om Prakash and Company and ₹ 7.19 crores from Reshma Kukreja. The Ld. Assessing Officer neither examined the genuineness of loans, its creditworthiness, in the light of applicability of section 68 of the Act. Taking fresh loan by the assessee was not even contradicted by the assessee. In view of this factual matrix, we agree with the finding of the ld. Commissioner that the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Assessing Officer neither conducted proper enquiries nor applied hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvited to various pages of the paper book including balance sheet. It was contended that the assessment order is not erroneous, therefore, the revisional order is not legally valid. Reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon ble Guwahati High Court in 290 ITR 395 (Gaut.). Plea was also raised that it may be a case of inadequate enquiry but not that no enquiry was made. 2.1. On the other hand, Shri M. Dayasagar, ld. DR, strongly defended the impugned order by contending that the ld. Commissioner justifiably invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, more specifically, when the Assessing Officer failed to examine the issues under hand for which our attention was invited to certain paras of the assessment order. It was pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is subversive of the administration of Revenue. Further, exact error must be disclosed by the Commissioner as was held in CIT vs. G.K. Kabra (211 ITR 336)(AP). Section 263 of the Act enables the Commissioner to have a look at the orders or proceedings of the lower authority to effect correction, if so needed, particularly, if the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The object of the provision is to raise revenue for the state and section 263 is enabling provision conferring jurisdiction upon the Commissioner to revise the order. The provision is intended to plug the leakage of the revenue by the erroneous and prejudicial order. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in following decisions:- i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) along with explanation 8 to section 43(1), while allowing the interest on borrowing. Likewise, no discussion has been made with respect to investment of ₹ 5.31 crores in UTI mutual funds, wherein, dividend of ₹ 2.53 lakhs was claimed as exempt. It is also noted that during the year, fresh interest free unsecured loans were raised, amounting to ₹ 3.74 cores from Om Prakash and Company and ₹ 7.19 crores from Reshma Kukreja. The Ld. Assessing Officer neither examined the genuineness of loans, its creditworthiness, in the light of applicability of section 68 of the Act. Taking fresh loan by the assessee was not even contradicted by the assessee. In view of this factual matrix, we agree with the finding of the ld. Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts available on record. It is further noted that in para 7 of the impugned order, certain direction with respect to examining the unsecured loans, taken by the assessee and applicability of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and 14A vis- -vis exempt income has been asked for and it has been specifically directed that adequate opportunity be provided to the assessee and further directed the Assessing Officer to decide with an open mind. It is not the case that own view of the Ld. Commissioner has been thrust upon the Assessing Officer to decide the case in a particular manner. If the assessee is satisfied that necessary details, if filed, were not put to black and white then there should be no fear in the mind of the assessee. It is also no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|