9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after having obtained the necessary approval from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Infact this itself is an evidence of application of mind of the AO, followed by notice to the respondent and verification of the response of the respondent. The aforesaid facts while exercising the powers of revision has been completely ignored the CIT. The impugned order of the Tribunal correctly held foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10-11. 2. The Revenue urges the following question of law for our consideration: Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in Law, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the CIT passed under Section 263 of th Act? 3. The respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of share-trading. Its return of income for the subject assessment year was taken up f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer for passing a fresh order after due application of mind. 5. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The impugned order dated 28th October, 2015 on facts found that originally the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. However, thereafter with approval of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, the Assessing Officer had issued notices to the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Court in CIT Vs. Gabrial (I) Ltd. 203 ITR 108. 6. Mr. Kotangle, learned counsel in support of the appeal places reliance upon the order dated 27th February, 2015 of the CIT while exercising her powers of revision. It is further submitted that mere stating by the Assessing Officer in her Assessment Order dated 3rd January, 2013 that she has verified the details formulated during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly held following the decision of this Court in Gabrial (I) Ltd.(supra) that the Assessment Order dated 3rd July, 2013 cannot be termed erroneous simply because he may have written the order move elaborately or taken a different view on facts (which is not perverse). Thus, as the impugned order dated 28th October, 2015 of the Tribunal applied the decision of this Court no substantial question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
