9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h power can certainly be exercised by the revisional authority. However, so far as an argument as raised by the appellant that the AO had failed to make proper verification of the record during assessment proceedings concerned and the Tribunal had wrongly held so is concerned, we are unable to accept the same. AO had framed assessment after reopening of the same pursuant to notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on the ground that there was escapement of income as information had been received from the Excise and Taxation Department regarding bogus purchases of husk being made by the respondent. The AO in his order Annexure A-1 had clearly mentioned that the books of accounts, vouchers, audit report along with audited Trading, Profit and Loss account along with balance sheet of the respondent-assessee had been examined. The order as passed by the AO might not be a detailed one but it stands revealed from the same that he had conducted due inquiry in the matter. It is well settled proposition of law that if there was an inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass an order under Section 263 of the Act merely because he had di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the assessing officer (AO) after seeking approval from the concerned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and assessment for the relevant A.Y. was re-opened. The same was completed vide order dated 29.12.2016 by the AO at the same income. Subsequently, the PCIT while exercising his revisional powers under Section 263 of the Act and on the basis of an information received from the investigation wing of the Income Tax Department, initiated proceedings against the assessee on the allegations that he had made bogus purchases of husk and other allied products generated out of milling process of the rice, from the dealers who were suspicious and whose registration had been cancelled. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued against the assessee calling upon him to explain the mismatch of purchases worth Rs. 4,05,57,304/- which was intimated by the Excise and Taxation Department also. Action was proposed to be taken against the assessee on the ground that the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the AO had not made any independent inquiry while conducting re-assessment proceedings. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as liable to be quashed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue and have carefully gone through the record. 6. Section 263 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceeding under the Act and if he considers that any order passed by the AO/Income Tax Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after complying with the principles of natural justice, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case require including the order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the same and directing fresh one. The well settled proposition of law is that revisional powers conferred on the Commissioner under Section 263 are of wide amplitude and it empowers the Commissioner to make or cause to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary in order to find out, if the order passed by the ITO was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Reference in this regard can be made to Malabar Industrial Company Limited v. CIT, (2000) 2 SCC 718 wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court had observed that in order to exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 (1) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of the revenue as the AO had made proper verification during the assessment proceedings and the question of bogus purchases could not be enquired multiple times. It was further observed that the re-assessment order had been passed by the AO in pursuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act after seeking approval from PCIT, Jalandhar and the same could not be revised by the appellant being an officer of the same rank. 8. On assessment of the record, it emerges that so far as the observation to the effect that the appellant who was the revisional authority could not revise the order of AO as it was approved by an officer of the same rank concerned, the same cannot be held to be correct in view of the fact that infact there is no bar for the Principal Commissioner to invoke powers under Section 263 of the Act to examine an assessment order passed by the AO by issuing notice after seeking approval from Principal Commissioner and such power can certainly be exercised by the revisional authority. However, so far as an argument as raised by the appellant that the AO had failed to make proper verification of the record during assessment proceedings concerned and the Tribunal had wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee from eight bogus firms, were infact made by the assessee, therefore, there was no escapement of income. In our considered opinion, the re-assessment proceedings were concluded by the AO by taking into consideration the material available on record and it could not be stated that the same had not been appreciated and examined by him. The same issue was again sought to be inquired into by the appellant-revisional authority which could not be allowed to be inquired multiple times. The order passed by the AO as such could not be stated to be erroneous and since as per the re-assessment, no income was held to have escaped assessment by the AO and as appellant also could not bring any such material on record, therefore, the assessment order cannot be held to be pre-judicial to the interest of revenue as well within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. As such, we are inclined to hold that the findings as given by the Tribunal do not warrant any interference. Accordingly, while upholding the same, we see no reason to allow the appeal and dismiss the same. No order as to costs. 9. All miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. - - TaxTMI - TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
