9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g heard learned Counsels on both sides and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is settled law that where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.- Decided in favour of the assessee - Income Tax Appeal No. 182 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 16-2-2017 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra, JJ. For the Appellant : C.S.C. (I.T),Krishna Agarawal For the Respondent :- R.M. Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee before the CIT and the CIT passed an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.03.2008. The assessee questioned the revisional order dated 20.03.2008 and the Tribunal while examining the matter observes as under:- Thus, there is no substance in the findings of the ld. CIT that there was underassessment of income. It has also not been disputed by the Revenue before us that alongwith its return of income the assessee had filed audited accounts (page nos.1 to 31of the Paper Book) and the audit report Section 44AB of the Act (page nos.32 to 115 of the Paper Book). The computation of profit under Section 115JB was also supported by the report of the ld. Chartered Accountant in form No.29B (page nos.123 to 126 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le passing the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. It has made a double addition, even though the AO has already added an income of two crores and ninety eight lakhs approximately for the year in question. The Tribunal has, therefore, come to the conclusion that there was no occasion for the CIT to pass order under Section 263 of the Act as it could not be said that while taking a view the AO had made an error or that it amounted to an error and consequently no loss or prejudice had been caused to the revenue. Having heard learned Counsels on both sides and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is settled law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
