Mundra House, 822-A, Shivaju Nagar, Civil Lines, jaipur-302006 9314501680, 9314501791

B.P.Mundra

मानवता से काम करें मन के सारे काम अपने आप हो जायेंगे

इस महीने के इम्पोर्टेंट काम
  • Home
  • GST
  • Cases Income tax
  • MCA
  • Subsidy
  • TDS
  • About Us
  • contact us
  • Login
    • Admin Login
    • Staff Login
    • User Login
  • Loan
  • Apply for job
  • Click Here
  • HOW TO
  • To file ITR for AY 2020-21 kindly give details (and also evidence if yes) of following
  • Categories
    • Articles
    • Authority
    • Benami Transactions (Prohibition)
    • client
    • Constitution of India
    • Finance Act 1994
    • formalities to be completed
    • GST
    • Happiness
    • HOW TO
    • Income Tax
    • Indian Evidence Act 1872
    • Job Application
    • MCA
    • Office system
    • Papers required for filing
    • Principal of mutuality
    • rajasthan public trust
    • Smile
    • Subsidy
    • work report

B.P.MUNDRA

Mundra House, 822-A, Shivaju Nagar, Civil Lines, jaipur-302006 9314501680, 9314501791


“…..Commissioner could exercise his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act “only in cases where no enquiry is made by the assessing officer.” (Para 9) Aug 2, 2019 HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

B.P.Mundra > Income Tax > Cases Income tax > 263-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue > “…..Commissioner could exercise his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act “only in cases where no enquiry is made by the assessing officer.” (Para 9) Aug 2, 2019 HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

admin November 16, 2019

263-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue, Calcutta High Court

Revision, section 263

 65 total views

“…..Commissioner could exercise his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act “only in cases where no enquiry is made by the assessing officer.” (Para 9)

Aug 2, 2019 HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

Full text of decision is as under:-

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

SANJIB BANERJEE & SUVRA GHOSH, JJ.

ITA No. 169 of 2018

Aug 2, 2019

(2019) 105 CCH 0099 KolHC

Legislation Referred to

Section 263

Case pertains to

Asst. Year

Held

The Tribunal relied on a view taken by a coordinate bench in the cases of Visuvius India Limited v. CIT and CIT v. G.K. Kabra wherein, it was held that if the object of the notice was one and the matter was treated for a different purpose in the ultimate order, that may not be the appropriate exercise of the jurisdiction. Thus, the order of the Tribunal in respect of the first of the four heads does not call for any interference.

  (Paras 7&8)

Tribunal found that the Commissioner had not even indicated in the show- cause notice that “adequate enquiries were not carried out.” The Tribunal found that the assessing officer had conducted an enquiry regarding the addition of fixed assets. The Tribunal referred to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act and the reply of the assessee. The Tribunal reasoned that the order passed by the assessing officer in such circumstances could neither be held to be erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Commissioner could exercise his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act “only in cases where no enquiry is made by the assessing officer.”

(Para 9)

Cases Referred to

CIT vs. G.K. Kabra 211 ITR 336

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs. CIT 243 ITR 83

Visuvius India Limited vs. CIT 54 SOT 172

Counsel appeared:

P.K. Bhowmick, Mr. Radhamohan Ray, Advs. for the Petitioner.: J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv., Nilanjana Banerjee, Adv. for the Respondent.

THE COURT

  1. The appeal was admitted by an order of November 12, 2018 and the following questions of law framed:

“i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal should have entertained and decided the subject appeal without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to make a relook into the assessment in terms of the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax dated 29th March, 2016 under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

  1. ii) Whether the appeal before the Tribunal was premature and the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the same?

iii) Whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal in passing its impugned order dated 4th November, 2016 was erroneous without compliance of the said order of remand made by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax?”

  1. There is no dispute that the appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable. Certain matters had been directed by the Commissioner of Income Tax to be looked into afresh by the assessing officer. The assessee perceived that such matters had already been gone into by the assessing officer and did not require a re-look. The assessee was also entitled to carry an appeal from the order of the Commissioner and the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the various matters that were sought to be opened up by the order of the Commissioner could not have been done.
  1. The first and second questions framed appear to be one and the same and they imply that the Tribunal should have allowed the fresh assessment or fact-finding enquiry to be completed by the assessing officer. The third question appears also to be the same except the third question may be bereft of any legal import. Appeals entertained in this jurisdiction are only on substantial questions of law.
  1. For the guidance of the Court, the Revenue has referred to a judgment reported at 243 ITR 83 (Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd v. CIT) where the Supreme Court emphasised that both limbs of the provision had to be complied with before jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could be assumed. The Commissioner had to find that the order of the assessing officer sought to be revised was erroneous and that such error prejudiced the interest of the Revenue. The Court reiterated that the fulfilment of one condition in the absence of the other would not suffice in such a situation as the provision required compliance with both conditions.
  1. In the present case, four broad aspects were questioned before the Tribunal. By the order impugned dated November 4, 2016, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee.
  1. The first aspect pertains to an order under Section 143(3) of the Act which was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The specific matter pertained to the difference in the addition of fixed assets of about Rs.1.10 crore. The notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued to clarify the difference. The assessee clarified the difference by its written submission and a reconciliation statement was also used. However, the Commissioner, instead of considering the reply, recorded that the issue had not been verified by the assessing officer.
  1. The Tribunal set aside the decision of the Commissioner on the ground that the show-cause notice indicated a specific purpose but the matter was dealt with on another count after the receipt of the reply. The Tribunal relied on a view taken by a coordinate bench reported at 54 SOT 172 (Visuvius India Limited v. CIT) and a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported at 211 ITR 336 (CIT v. G.K. Kabra). In both cases, it was held that if the object of the notice was one and the matter was treated for a different purpose in the ultimate order, that may not be the appropriate exercise of the jurisdiction.
  1. In the light of a possible view taken on the facts as they presented themselves in such regard, the order of the tribunal in respect of the first of the four heads does not call for any interference.
  1. The tribunal found that the Commissioner had not even indicated in the show- cause notice that “adequate enquiries were not carried out.” The tribunal found that the assessing officer had conducted an enquiry regarding the addition of fixed assets. The tribunal referred to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act and the reply of the assessee. The tribunal reasoned that the order passed by the assessing officer in such circumstances could neither be held to be erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In such regard, the tribunal referred to a judgment of the Allahabad High Court where it was observed that the Commissioner could exercise his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act “only in cases where no enquiry is made by the assessing officer.”
  1. On the second aspect pertaining to disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D (2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the tribunal found that the assessing officer had netted off the interest paid with the interest income for working out the disallowance under Rule 8D. According to the tribunal, the assessing officer had applied his mind to the issue and it was not something that escaped the attention of the assessing officer for the Commissioner to assume jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act on the ground that no enquiry in such regard had been conducted by the assessee.
  1. Apropos the third aspect pertaining to trade discount, the tribunal found that the Commissioner had issued the notice for addition of trade discount on the ground that the assessee’s claim for trade discount was not in order. The tribunal also found that details of the trade discount had been furnished by the assessee to the assessing officer at the time of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and the details of such discount had been included in the paper-book filed before the tribunal. Further, the tribunal found that the Commissioner had changed his stand as indicated in the notice and at the time of passing the order under Section 263 of the Act. For the same reasons, as in respect of the first head pertaining to fixed assets, the tribunal found that the Commissioner had acted without basis.
  1. Finally, as regards the fourth issue pertaining to depreciation, the tribunal found that the Commissioner had raised the issue in the notice under Section 263 of the Act for excess depreciation but concluded in his order that proper enquiries had not been made by the assessing officer. Again, the tribunal found that there was a change in stand with regard to the notice and in the revision order, which was impermissible.
  1. In matters of the present kind where there is a specialized tribunal in place for dealing with matters pertaining to a particular subject, the scope of interference is limited in the present jurisdiction. Once it is seen that a plausible or reasonable view has been taken by the tribunal upon a fair discussion of the matter, this Court in exercise of the authority available in this jurisdiction would not supplant its view in place of the tribunal’s unless the error is apparent and palpable.
  1. The tribunal has given adequate reasons, and relied on precedents, as to why the manner in which the jurisdiction exercised by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act was found to be erroneous. There does not appear to be any legal error committed by the tribunal in either taking up the appeal or in deciding the same, particularly since cogent grounds have been indicated for interfering with the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Act.
  1. The questions framed are answered in the negative in every case. ITA No. 169 of 2018 is dismissed.
  1. There will be no order as to costs.

 

Total Page Visits: 106 - Today Page Visits: 2

← Previous post

Next post →

Categories

  • Articles (50)
  • Authority (1)
  • Benami Transactions (Prohibition) (1)
  • client (54)
  • Constitution of India (1)
  • Finance Act 1994 (0)
  • formalities to be completed (1)
  • GST (56)
  • Happiness (4)
  • HOW TO (40)
  • Income Tax (228)
  • Indian Evidence Act 1872 (1)
  • invalid notice (1)
  • Job Application (0)
  • MCA (2)
  • Notice 148 (0)
  • Office system (5)
  • Papers required for filing (6)
  • Principal of mutuality (1)
  • rajasthan public trust (2)
  • Smile (7)
  • Subsidy (5)
  • work report (2)
  • Archives

    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019

    Recent Posts

    • Consequences of absence of the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act before framing the assessment order? Answer order liable to to be quashed. RAM NIWAS JAIN vs.ITO. ITAT DELHI on 07-Jan-2021. Section 148: Consequences of granting approval by CIT in a mechanical manner by putting only “Yes”. Answer order liable to to be quashed. RAM NIWAS JAIN vs.ITO. ITAT DELHI on 07-Jan-2021.
    • Section 23(1)(c). Can AO make addition on account of notional rent when the property on rent in past is lying vacant in the relevant year and the assessee mention only the reason though no evidence of efforts made was submitted except the evidence that the property was on rent in next financial year.ITAT BOMBAY passed the order on Oct 30, 2019AY 2014-15 EMPIRE CAPITAL PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT. Decision in favour of assessee
    • अगर SVA की वैल्यूएशन DVO के वैल्यूएशन से ज्यादा आती है तो कर अधिकारी धारा 50C के प्रावधान के अनुसार कौन सी वैल्यू लेगा?ITAT Mumbai ने 18.11.2016 को Sangeeta Vijay Kumar, Mumbai vs Acit 25(2) को इसका ऑर्डर पास किया है।
    • Is punitive charges paid to the railways disallowable u/s 37(1) by holding as penalty. Ans is No. Order passed by ITAT KOLKATA on Nov 20, 2020 in the case of RUNGTA MINES PVT. LTD.vs. ACIT.
    • Is deduction under section 36 (1)(iii) for interest paid allowable when the relevant borrowed capital was given as interest free advance to sister concern for business expediency of the assessee. ITAT Jaipur passed the order on 11th Sept;2020 in the case of Kalya Awas Vikas (P). Ltd. v. ACIT