9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as either erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Thus, both the limbs of section 263 of the Act were not satisfied. Consequently, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act was unwarranted. In view of the above, it is concluded that no illegality or perversity could be shown by the learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue so as to hold that the assumption of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act was justified. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I. T. A. No. 310 of 2016 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 25-4-2017 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. For the Appellant : Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order, sought to be revised had been passed by the Assessing Officer on an incorrect assumption of facts, incorrect application of law, without application of mind and without making proper enquiry and verification ? (iii) Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in setting aside the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that assessment order, sought to be revised had been passed without making proper enquiry as to how the sales tax can be claimed by the assessee as an expenditure when the same was not included in the sales ? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The assessee is a limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer had not properly examined the issue of allowability of sales tax expenditure of ₹ 1,12,50,000 and consequently passed the impugned order under section 263 of the Act holding that the assessment order dated December 29, 2011 under section 153A/143(3) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner of Income-tax set aside the impugned order with the direction to the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment after examining the facts of the case and the relevant provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated March 15, 2016, annexure A-III, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. 7. The above provision provides for exercise of revisonal jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income-tax. According to the said provision, the two conditions are required to be satisfied, i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
