9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - - - - Dated:- 21-11-2005 - Judge(s) : DIPAK MISRA., K. K. LAHOTI. JUDGMENT These two appeals were admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in overturning and unsettling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the Commissioner had not recorded reasons that there had been prejudice to the interests of the Revenue but solely on the foundation that the Assessing Officer did not have the ample opportunity to proceed with the assessment and there was no sufficient time on the part of the Additional Commissioner to check the order of assessment passed by the original authority?" It is pertinent to mention at the very beginning that the only difference in these two appeals is that the assessees are different. Hence, for the sake of clarity and convenience, we shall state the facts in M.A.I.T. No. 52 of 2004. The assessee-respondent is a private limited company deriving income from manufacturing of bread and allied products and sale thereof. The office and residential premises of the assessee and its directors were searched u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to the queries and explanations offered/filed during the assessment. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the assessee had filed detailed reply and reply to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer and submitted answers to the queries before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions to come to hold that the Commissioner had not really found any adverse material in the explanation/evidence and proceeded in a vague manner that the assessment was made in a hurry without proper examination of the seized documents without application of mind. It also expressed the view that the assessment proceeding commenced late by the Assessing Officer for which the assessee should not be penalised inasmuch as he had filed replies within a short span of time as per directions of the Assessing Officer without seeking any adjournment and excuses. In addition, the Tribunal also held that the Assessing Officer had examined all the documents and there had been proper application of mind and the Commissioner, Income-tax, had not recorded any specific defect except stating that it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the purposes of this sub-section,- (a) an order passed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, by the Assessing Officer shall include- (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Chief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; (b) 'record' shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of which it can be said that the Commissioner acting in a reasonable manner could have come to such a conclusion, the very initiation of proceedings by him will be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. Such action will be against the well-accepted policy of law that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity, (see Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) at page 10). As observed in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1978] 114 ITR 404, 407 (AP) by Raghuveer J. (as his Lordship then was), 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 circumstances. If this is permitted, litigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. Exercise of power of suo motu revision under such circumstances will amount to arbitrary exercise of power. It is well-settled that when exercise of statutory power is dependent upon the existence of certain objective facts, the authority before exercising such power must have materials on record to satisfy it in that regard. If the action of the authority is challenged before the court it would be open to the courts to examine whether the relevant objective factors were available from the records called for and examined by such authority. Our aforesaid conclusion gets full support from a decision of Sabyasachi Mukharji J. (as his Lordship then was) in Russell Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. A. Chawdhury, Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 229 (Cal). In our opinion, any other view in the matter will amount to giving unbridled and arbitrary power to the revising authority to initiate proceedings for revision in every case and start re-examination and fresh enquiries in matters which have already been concluded under the law. As already stated it is a quasi-judicial power hedged in with limitation and has to be exercised subject to the same and within its scope and ambit. So far as calling for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
