9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h where it is prejudicial to the revenue? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deciding that CIT has only power to set aside the denovo assessment with absolute discretion to the Assessing Officer? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Sec.263 of the Income Tax Act confers power to CIT to revise any proceedings of the Assessing Officer where it is prejudicial to revenue or not?". 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- (i)The assessee filed her return of income on 15.12.2004 admitting a total income of Rs.7,77,440/- for the assessment year 2004-05. The same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act on 20.06.2005. Thereafter, the case was taken up f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er conferred under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be exercised by the Commissioner when the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. While exercising the said power, the Commissioner will have to satisfy the twin conditions, namely, the order of the Assessing Officer which is sought to be revised is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The said power is of wide import. The phrase, "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue" has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. In the present case on hand, the Commissioner has correctly exercised the power, since based upon the records he found that the order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ul to refer to the analogous provision contained in the Central Excises and Salt Act (1 of 1944). The Supreme Court, while considering the above said provision held that the authority while exercising such power cannot direct the lower authority to complete the assessment in a particular manner. The observation of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotives co. Ltd etc. reported in AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 287 is as follows:- "4. In our view, this writ petition should not have been entertained by the High court at all. The Assistant Collector is entitled to complete the assessment as he thinks fit in exercise of the Judgment and according to his understanding of the law and facts. For this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
