9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed by the PCIT only after coming to the conclusion that the earlier finding of the Ld AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on the basis of evidential material and without doing so, he does not get the power to set aside the assessment, hence in our considered opinion, the conclusion drawn by the Ld PCIT is untenable in law. We de integro and applying the dictum form CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd [ 1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] are of the strong view that, the action of Ld PCIT could not be sustainable in eyes of law, ergo we find no infirmity with the 143(3) order of assessment and consequently quash the revisionary order, thus the solitary legal ground of the appellant is allowed. - ITA No. 60/RPR/2021 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2022 - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member And Shri Jamlappa D. Battull, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri S. R. Rao For the Revenue : Shri P. K. Mishra ORDER PER JAMLAPPA D. BATTULL, AM; Against the revisionary order of Principal of Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1 [for short PCIT ] passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short the Act ] vide order dt 28/03/2021 for the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2 Ld PCIT invoked the revisionary powers vested in him by virtue of section 263(1) and betokening the assessment order as erroneous in the absence of enquires as regards to cash position as at the closure of financial year and thus directed the Ld AO to redo the assessment after conducting proper enquiry. 5.3 Pending such direction before the Ld. AO, the appellant assessee opposed the revisionary action of Ld PCIT before this Tribunal for justice on a solitary legal ground alleging that, order of the Ld AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. After hearing to the rival contentions of both the parties; perused material placed on records and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position and the case laws relied upon by the appellant assessee as well the respondent revenue. 7. It is evidently discernible form the records are that; 7.1 The primary issue in the present controversy is, as to whether or not the order passed by the assessing officer u/s 143(3) can be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the preview of section 263 of the Act. 7.2 It is necessary to make a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under; Sr M/s Maa Durga Iron Store M/s Jay Steels Date Amount Date Amount 1 27-03-2016 4,50,000 27-03-2016 3,50,000 2 28-03-2016 4,50,000 28-03-2016 3,50,000 3 29-03-2016 3,50,000 29-03-2016 3,50,000 4 30-03-2016 4,50,000 30-03-2016 0 5 31-03-2016 6,93,570 31-03-2016 3,27,095 7.7 The Ld PCIT did not appreciate the aforesaid receipts as genuine citing various reasons as born out of the revisionary order viz; receipt in the last week of the financial year, exclusively from two parties, multiple consecutive daily receipts, abrupt receipts from long outstanding and absence of information u/s 133(6). 7.8 In response to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of twofold conditions before invocation and these explicitly are; (i) the order of the assessing officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If any one of two is absent or unsatisfied, that is where the order of the assessing officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the revenue or where order is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the revenue, then the recourse to Section 263(1) of the Act fails. 9.3 Albeit the foresaid twin satisfaction drawn from the assessment records may trigger the revisionary jurisdiction, yet such shall not automatically empower the revisionary tax authorities to conclude the revision proceedings without obeying additional dual riders such as; (i) making or causing to be made such inquiry as necessary and (ii) according an opportunity of being heard to the assessee following the principle of natural justice. 9.4 In the light of aforesaid provisions of law, it is of paramount importance to note that, an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law or passing an order without application of mind or without applying the principle of natural justice, shall discretely be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd reported at 203 ITR 108, referring to the ration laid down by Hon ble Justice Raghuveer in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd Vs ITO , tumbledown the revisionary action in para 10 thereof as; 10. As observed in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. ITO 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 would have no end, except when legal ingenuity is exhausted . To do so, is . . . to divide one argument into two and to multiply the litigation . (Emphasis supplied) 13. We find that, the Ld AO in this case had made inquiries in regard to the source of cash receipts and reasons of substantial closing cash balance held by the assessee and after considering the written submission duly supported by bank statements, audit reports, ledger accounts of debtors and explanation offered, the same was accepted by the Ld AO on being satisfied with the submission vis- -vis explanation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
