9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against which two replies were filed by the assessee and the same were subject matter of consideration by Ld. AO. After satisfying himself with the details furnished by the assessee, the assessment was framed. The Ld. Pr.CIT finding shortcomings in the verification made by AO, set-aside the order and directed AO to framed assessment de-novo. As already noted by us, AO had appreciated the details submitted by the assessee and chose not to make any additions on the basis of details furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the order could not be branded as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue simply because the revisional authority felt that further verifications should have been done in the matter and more aspects were to be considered while framing the assessment. If that be so, there would be no end to assessment proceedings and the matter would never attain finality. CIT, in our opinion, could not be clothed with unbridled power to undo each and every assessment merely because, in his opinion, further verifications were required to be made unless it was shown that the order under consideration was not passed in accordance with law. Therefore, we are of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon ble Court in its subsequent judgement titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed by jurisdictional High Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). 1.2 The Hon ble Delhi High Court, CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (supra), further observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression erroneous , Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)] , held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an erroneous judgment means one rendered according to course and practice of Court, but contrary to law, upon mistaken view of law; or upon erroneous application of legal principles and thus it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written differently or more elaborately. The Section does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 quasijudicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity [Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. ITO, (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC)]. It was further observed as under: - From the aforesaid definitions as it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately. This section does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gislature had not vested in the revenue any specific power to question an order of assessment by means of an appeal. Regarding applicability of Section 263, what has to be seen is that a satisfaction that an order passed by the Authority under the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is the basic pre-condition for exercise of jurisdiction under section 263. Both are twin conditions that have to be conjointly present. Once such satisfaction is reached, jurisdiction to exercise the power would be available subject to observance of the principles of natural justice which is implicit in the requirement cast by the section to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Further, there could be no doubt that so long as the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view, the same ought not to be interfered with by the Commissioner under Section 263 merely on the ground that there is another possible view of the matter. Permitting exercise of revisional power in a situation where two views are possible would really amount to conferring some kind of an appellate power in the revisional authority. This is a course of action that must be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how the assessment framed was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore, the order u/s 263 dt. 19.03.2019 be held to be invalid and bad-in-law. 2.2 The assessment for year under consideration was framed by Ld. AO on 03/12/2016 accepting returned income of ₹ 17.82 Crores e-filed by the assessee on 30/11/2014. The assessment order is a short order which note that notice u/s 142(1) dated 15/06/2016 was issued along with questionnaire which was responded to by the assessee and details were furnished. Another observation in the order is that books of account along with bills and vouchers were produced which were subjected to test check. 2.3 Subsequently, Ld. Pr.CIT, after perusal of case records, noted that the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on certain parameters (10 in number) which have already been enumerated in the opening paragraph of impugned order. It was observed that reply with respect to questionnaire covering all the points was not submitted by the assessee and scrutiny assessment was completed on the basis of limited records only. It was, inter-alia, observed that complete detail of project wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve also perused the material placed before us including questionnaire dated 15/06/2016 issued by Ld. AO during assessment proceedings and the assessee s response thereto. 4. Upon perusal of notice u/s 142(1) dated 15/06/2016 issued to the assessee during the course of original assessment proceedings, it could be seen that a detailed questionnaire was issued to the assessee asking him to submit the requisite details / documents under various heads etc. The said details were furnished by the assessee in couple of replies which are placed on page nos. 23 to 117 of the paper book. In one of the replies, the assessee has, inter-alia, explained its nature of business, details of projects undertaken by the assessee, along with details of bank accounts. In another reply, the assessee filed several details which were called for by Ld.AO. These details would, inter-alia, include complete details of sundry creditors, party wise deposits and advances, details of loans interest paid, party wise details of unsecured loans, party wise details of purchases, details of salary, addition to fixed assets, reconciliation of contract receipts, details of inventory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment de-novo. However, as already noted by us, Ld. AO had appreciated the details submitted by the assessee and chose not to make any additions on the basis of details furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the order could not be branded as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue simply because the revisional authority felt that further verifications should have been done in the matter and more aspects were to be considered while framing the assessment. If that be so, there would be no end to assessment proceedings and the matter would never attain finality. The Ld. Pr.CIT, in our opinion, could not be clothed with unbridled power to undo each and every assessment merely because, in his opinion, further verifications were required to be made unless it was shown that the order under consideration was not passed in accordance with law. 7. Therefore, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 as exercised by Ld. Pr.CIT vide order dated 19/03/2019 could not be held to be sustainable under law. By quashing the same, we restore the original order framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
