9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tt. CIT, Range-II, Allahabad) was both erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per the principles laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2000) 248 ITR 83 and in cancelling the above referred order, with the direction to make fresh assessment after considering and complying with the issues raised and elaborately discussed in the present order. 2. BECAUSE the regular assessment order dated 28.12.2011 accorded fully with the provisions of the Act and a probable view taken by the Assessing officer cannot be held to be erroneous in law, as per the principle laid down in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. (supra) itself, and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en stated that the claim of the assessee society under section 11/12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act hereinafter) has been wrongly allowed by the A.O. despite the fact that the society is not registered under section 12A/12AA of the Act for the relevant A.Y. After considering the assessee s submission, the CIT held as under :- (Para 3.4 page 6) 3.4) As further laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), the twin conditions, namely (i) the order of the assessing officer sought to be revised is erroneous and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, are both fulfilled in the instant case, based on facts and legal position as discussed above, I therefore, hold that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve referred the relevant Income Expenditure Account of which copy has been placed in Paper Book and submitted that the total receipt of the society was ₹ 95,71,259/-. The ld. Authorized Representative in support of his contention relied upon the decision in the case of Param Hans Swami Uma Bharti Mission vs. ACIT, 140 ITD 429. 5. The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the order of CIT(A) and also relied upon the following decisions :- i) Rohini Holdings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 345 ITR 446 (Mad) ii) CIT vs. Bhagwan Das, 272 ITR 367 (All.) iii) Swarup Vegetable Products vs. CIT, 187 ITR 412 (All.) 6. We have heard the ld. Representatives of the parties and records perused. The issue under consideration is pertaini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 been considered and decided in such appeal.] [(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.] (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initiation of proceedings by him will be illegal and without jurisdiction. The power of suo motu revision under sub-section (1) is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist. Two circumstances must exist to enable the Commissioner to exercise power of revision under this subsection, viz.(1)the order is erroneous ; (2) by virtue of the order being erroneous prejudice has been caused to the interests of the Revenue. It has, therefore, to be considered firstly as to when an order can be said to be erroneous. We find that the expressions erroneous , erroneous assessment and erroneous judgment have been defined in Black's Law Dictionary. According to the def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the quasi-judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. It may be said in such a case that in the opinion of the Commissioner the order in question is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. But that by itself will not be enough to vest the Commissioner with the power of suo motu revision because the first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent. 9. In the light of the above discussion, if we consider the facts of the case under consideration, we notice that the CIT has taken a particular view that the gross receipt is more than ₹ 1 crore, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
