Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.933/AHD/2017 (�नधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rajhans Metals, Vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Valsad, Near Shriram Quarry, At & Post – Alipore, Taluka – Chikhali, Navsari. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFR9543N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Revenue by : Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR) सुनवाईक�तार�ख/ Date of Hearing : 27/08/2021 घोषणाक�तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad [in short “the ld. PCIT”] under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 23.03.2017. Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, Ld Principal Commissioner has erred in passing order u/s 263 of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, Ld Principal Commissioner has erred in passing order u/s 263 of the Act observing that assessing officer has failed to initiate penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. 3. It is prayed that above order passed by Principal Commissioner of Income-tax may please be quashed/set aside. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
ITA No.933/AHD/2017 Assessment Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal 3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. Assessee filed its return of income electronically on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.1,28,39,070/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason that assessee has claimed in the Profit and Loss account 'large other expenses’. The assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was framed on 14.11.2014 determining total income to the tune of Rs.1,29,79,070/-.
Later, Assessing Officer i.e. ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari and the Range head i.e. Jt. CIT, Navsari Range, Navsari vide their letters dated 13.01.2017 have proposed that the assessment order in assessee`s case is erroneous as well prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, the same should be revised under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a notice under section 263 of the Act, dated 17.01.2017 was issued to the assessee. For the sake of reference the said notice under section 263 dated 17.01,2017 is reproduced below:
“No. Pr. CIT/VLS/Notice/263/RM/2016-17 Date:- 17.01.2017 To, M/s. Rajhans Metals, Near Shriram Quarry, At & Post-Alipore, Taluka-Chikhali, Navsari Sub:- Notice u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1951 in your case i.e. M/s. Rajhans Metals (PAN:- AAFFR9543V) for A. Y. 2012-13-reg. 2. In this case, the assessee company filed its return of income electronically on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.1,23,39,070/-. The case was selected scrutiny under CASS for the reason large other expenses claimed in the P&L account' and the assessment u/s 143(3) was passed on 14.11.2014 determining total income of Rs.1,29,79,070/-. 3. The AO i.e. ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsarsi and the Range head i.e. Jt. CIT, Navsari Range, Navsari vide their letters dated 13.01.2017 have proposed that the assessment order in this case is erroneous as well prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, the same should be revised u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. After going through the report of the AO, the Range head and examination of the assessment record of the AO, it is seen that the assessment framed by the ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari suffers from following errors/ mistakes which make it not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of the following:-
ITA No.933/AHD/2017 Assessment Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal (a) The case was selected under scrutiny under CASS on account of large 'other expenses' claimed in the P&L account amounting to Rs.8.16 crores under the head 'cost of goods produce', Rs.74.77/- lacs under the head 'selling and administrative expenses' and Rs.69.13 lacs under the head 'Financial Charges' but the AO has not carried out the required verification in respect of any of the major expenses debited to P&L account. So much so that there are cash payments made to some of the parties to whom the payments by cheque have also been made. There is no reason/justification for the assessee to make cash payments to the same party to whom the payments by cheque are being made unless there is one off emergency situation with justifiable reasons. (i) For example, in the case of Maruti Infrastructure there are cash payments amounting to Rs.3,15,237/- and most of these payments are shown to have been made in the month of January to March, 2012 on the dates in near vicinity of each other. The total payments to these parties amount to Rs.1.42 crores and the other payments have been made in cheque which shows that the party is having a bank account and as no problem whatsoever in accepting the payment by cheques. (ii) Similarly, in the case of Raj Supplier, the total cash payment of Rs.1,71,200/- have been made despite the fact that the other payment amounting to Rs. more than 30 lacs have been made by cheque. (iii) Further, in case of Shantilal C. Patel, the total cash payments of Rs.809500/-have been made out of the total payments of Rs.39.40 lacs, the other payments are made by cheque. (iv) In the case of Vijaybhai C. Patel, the total cash payments of Rs.7,01,579/- have been made out of total payments of Rs.44.33 lacs, the other payments are made by cheque. The cash payments to these parties despite the fact that these parties had bank account and other payments made to these parties by cheque, goes to show that there is something unusual about these payments which the AO should have examined but has failed to do so. (b) The examination of the ledger account of Uday Earth Movers shows that there are two mining contracts amounting to Rs.4,99,999/- each but no payment has been made to this party during the year. The AO should have examined the purpose of the expenses debited on account of mining contract and its relationship with the business of the assessee. (c) Similarly, in the case of Sawariya Earth Movers, the mining expenses amounting to Rs.688124/-have been debited on 31.03.2012. The date of booking of expenses raises a doubt/suspicion regarding its genuineness. The AO should have verified the same but has failed to do. (d) There has been increase in the partners capital from Rs.1.45 crore to Rs.2.45 crores. The AO has not even bothered to obtained the confirmations in respect of the partners' capital contribution leave alone the documentary evidence in support of sources of funds.
ITA No.933/AHD/2017 Assessment Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal (e) There has been increase in amount of unsecured loans from Rs.2.00 crores to Rs.2.21 crores but there is no loan confirmation on record. There is only a Xerox copy of the lender confirming the balance as on 31.03.2012 since, these two is only a Xerox copy of the letter, it does not meet the requirements of law to qualify as loan confirmation. The copy of ledger account and the copy of return of income of the lender i.e. Poonam Paints Corporation are on record but there all unsigned copies having no evidentiary value whatsoever. (f) The AO has not examined the possibility of applicability of section despite the fact that there are investments in NPI Co-operative Society and shares in Palsana Industrial Association, amounting to Rs.45.28 lacs. (g) There are payments made to the parties hit by the provisions of section 40A(2)(b),of I.T. Act, 1961, including interest on loan to M/s Poonam Paints and interest on capital to partners, besides the remuneration to partners. The AO has not examined rather not obtained even loan confirmations in respect of unsecured loans from M/s Poonam Paints and capital contribution by partners. 5. Therefore, in view of the observations in para-4, the order of the AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to almost complete absence of any inquiry on the above mentioned issues despite the fact that the case was selected for scrutiny for verification of 'large other expenses claimed in profit and loss account' necessitating the revision of the order of the AO by invoking the provisions of section 253 of I T. Act. 6. You are, therefore, required to show-cause as to why the said assessment order be not revised by invoking the provisions of 253 of I.T. Act, 1961. The hearing in your case is being fixed on 03.02.2017 at 11.00 A.M. Please note that the required details should be submitted after numbering the documents enclosed and indexing the same in the forward/covering letter. 7. You can attend the hearing either personally or through your duly authorized representative or can file written submissions on or before the stipulated date and time of hearing. [Satbir Singh] Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad” 5. In response to the above show-cause notice, the assessee submitted its reply before the ld PCIT. 6. The Ld. PCIT after going through the reply of the assessee has observed the following issues: (i) Although the assessee has submitted copies of ledger accounts in respect of the expenses and loan confirmations in respect of unsecured loans, the sources of funds of these unsecured loans remains to be verified/examined.
ITA No.933/AHD/2017 Assessment Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal
(ii) Cash payments made in the amounts ranging from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.19,500/- have not been examined.
(iii) The issue of payments to related parties should be examined by AO by obtaining copies of relevant documents and, wherever necessary the assessee should be asked to produce these parties for further verification of the claim made.
(iv).The capital contribution by partners should be examined after obtaining the copies of bank statement of the bank accounts concerned maintained by these partners.
(v) The applicability of section 14A/36(1)(iii) of the Act should be examined after considering the cost of funds in the form of interest and other expenses. The proportionate disallowances should be made, if the assessee is unable to establish the direct nexus of the funds diverted/invested for investments in the instruments which yield tax exempt income. The ld. PCIT also asked the assessee to produce five parties viz. Uday Earth Movers, Maruti Infrastructure, Vijaybhai C. Patel, Raj Suppliers and Shantilal Patel. In this regard assessee stated vide letter dated 06.03.2017 that assessee furnished necessary details in regard to these five parties and the department was free to issue summons.
Based on the above facts, ld PCIT was of the view that it is prima facie proved that the assessment order dated 14.11.2014 under section 143(3) has been passed by the AO without making any inquiries whatsoever in respect of the issues as mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, the assessment order of the AO dated 14.11.2014 was set-aside by the ld PCIT and directed the assessing officer to make fresh assessment after giving proper opportunity to the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us.
ITA No.933/AHD/2017 Assessment Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal 9. Shri Rasesh Shah, Learned Counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act wherein the Assessing Officer has raised all the queries / questions which are raised by the Ld. PCIT in his order u/s 263 of the Act. In response to queries raised by the Assessing Officer u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has submitted his reply along with evidences. The Assessing Officer after going through the reply of assessee has passed order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 23.12.2014. Therefore, order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He further contends that in order to invoke the provision of section 263 of the Act, twin condition needs to be satisfied, first the order sought to be revised should be erroneous and secondly it should be prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Such occasion arises when the Assessing Officer while passing assessment order u/s 143(3) did not have called for such information / documents from the assessee to frame the assessment and did not consider the same before completing the assessment. Once Assessing Officer conducts inquiry as deemed fit to complete the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and takes a possible view on such inquiry and consideration of facts and explanation of the assessee, in that case, the provision of Section 263 of the Act does attract. Therefore, ld Counsel prays the Bench that order passed by the ld PCIT may be quashed.
Shri Ritesh Mishra, Learned Departmental Representative (CIT-DR) submits that assessing officer during the assessment stage, has issued the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. In response to the said notice the assessing officer has received the documents and evidences from the assessee, but he did not conduct further inquiry therefore order passed by the assessing officer is without application of mind. He further contends that order passed by the assessing officer is very small and ambiguous. He also states that ld PCIT has dealt the matter especially in para no.9 to 12 of his order and established that order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This way, ld DR prays the Bench that order passed by the ld PCIT may be upheld. Page | 6
ITA No.933/AHD/2017 Assessment Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal
We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld PCIT and other materials brought on record.We note that assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2012, declaring total income of Rs. 1,28,39,070/-. The return of income filed by the assessee is supported by the audited accounts and tax audit report in Form No. 3CB & 3CD. The said return of income was processed by the Department u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learned Counsel submits before us that assessee firm is running a stone quarry. The assessee excavated stone from mines and manufactured grits, metal, stone dust from black trap stone. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessing officer made the detailed inquiry by issuing not only notice u/s 143(2) but also u/s 142(1) of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessee produced the books of accounts in response to notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act. The assessing officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, requiring details, including production of books of accounts by the assessee along with the bills and vouchers for verification. In response to notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, assessee furnished part details vide letter dated 08.12.2014. The remaining details were furnished vide letter dated Nil along with production of books of accounts including supporting vouchers and documents at the time of the hearing. The assessing officer therefore passed the assessment order after making full inquiry as he should have made. After making inquiry, the assessing officer made the lump sum addition of Rs. 1,40,000/- out of labour and carting expenses as per para no. 5 of the assessment order on the ground that certain vouchers are defective. Even before making the addition of Rs. 1,40,000/-, assessing officer issued the show cause notice and in response, the assessee explained that the expenses were genuine and were incurred for the purpose of business. 12. From the above facts, it is clear that assessing officer passed the assessment order after making due inquiry. That is, assessing officer framed assessment order,
ITA No.933/AHD/2017 Assessment Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal after verification of the details furnished by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings and also verification of the books of accounts and vouchers produced before him. We note that ld PCIT issued show cause notice u/s 263 on 17.01.2017. In the said show cause notice itself it was mentioned that case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny under CASS on account of large “other expenses” claimed in the Profit and Loss account amounting to Rs. 8.16 crores under the head cost of goods produce, Rs. 74.77 lacs under the head selling and administrative expenses and Rs. 69.13 lacs under the head Financial Charges. In the said show cause notice, the ld PCIT observed that assessing officer didn’t make any inquiry on account of other expenses claimed in the profit and loss account on account of payment made to four parties viz. Maruti Infrastructure, Raj Supplier, Shantilal C. Patel & Vijay C. Patel, expenses claimed in regard to two mining contracts entered with Uday Earth Movers and Sawariya Earth Movers, interest paid to Poonam Paints Corporation and interest and remuneration paid to partners. The ld PCIT also raised the other issues regarding increase in partner’s capital, unsecured loan and applicability of section 14A, although these issues were outside the purview of the reasons for selection of the case under CASS scrutiny.
The Ld Counsel explains that return of income notified by the Government of India doesn’t contain many specific heads as required and therefore assessee has no option but to show these expenses (that are not falling under the specific head) as ‘other expenses’. However, the assessee is covered under tax audit u/s 44AB of the Act and return of income was supported by audited profit and loss account with specific head. The expenses referred by the ld PCIT were debited to Profit and Loss account under the specific head as can be verified from the audited Profit and Loss account attached in the return of income. The ld Counsel also submits details of the expenses as referred by the ld PCIT, which are tabulated as under: Sr. No. Name of party Relevant Head of Audit Report Amount 1. Maruti Infrastructure Mining Expenses 1,20,92,886/- 2. Raj Supplier Loading and Carting Expense 30,60,143/- 3 Shantilal C Patel Loading and Carting Expense 39,40,151/- 4. Vijaybhai C Patel Loading and Carting Expense 44,33,345/-
ITA No.933/AHD/2017 Assessment Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal 5. Uday earth Movers Mining Expenses 9,99,998/- 6. Sawariya Earch Movers Mining Expenses 6,88,124/- 7. Poonam Prints Interest on unsecured Loan 24,01,034/- 8. Payment to partners Interest on partners’ capital 15,61,742/- 9. Payment to partners Remuneration on partners’ capital 16,00,000/-
During the revision proceedings, in response to notice issued u/s 263, the assessee, vide letter dated 09.02.2017, explained the payments made to four parties and expenses in regard to Uday Earth Movers and Sawariya Earth Movers. In respect of the alleged four parties, it was submitted that only small amount of cash was paid to these parties, which were within the limits laid down us/ 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee has explained the reasons for the payments made in cash. The assessee also explained the outstanding amount of Uday Earth Movers and Sawariya Earth Movers. In respect of M/s Poonam Paints, it was submitted that there was no increase in loan, however, assessee filed the confirmation, and ITR in support of this. About the increase in case of partner’s capital, it is submitted that there has been fresh capital of Rs. 12.25 lacs and other induction of the capital was due to the partner’s emoluments. The Assessee also justified that payments were not made in contravention of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. In the course of the hearing, the PCIT made the detailed inquiry in regard to the other issues also which were not there in the show cause notice and assessee filed the detailed submission at the time of hearing on 27.02.2017. The ld. PCIT also asked the assessee to produce five parties viz. Uday Earth Movers, Maruti Infrastructure, Vijaybhai C. Patel, Raj Suppliers and Shantilal Patel. In this regard assessee stated vide letter dated 06.03.2017 that assessee furnished necessary details in regard to these five parties and the department was free to issue summons. The ld PCIT issued the letter dated 17.03.2017 stating that address of the alleged five parties are not complete and therefore assessee should produce these parties before him. The Assessee vide letter dated 22.03.2017 stated that detailed addresses are already on record in regard to alleged five parties, nevertheless, assessee again furnished the detailed addresses with request to issue summons to the parties. In this letter, assessee also stated that the parties could not be produced, as assessee was not in business touch with these parties for last three years and therefore he could not force them to
ITA No.933/AHD/2017 Assessment Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal attend. Although, ld PCIT made the detailed inquiry and he didn’t issue further show cause notice stating the reasons of his dissatisfaction on assessee’s submission.
We note that assessee has filed the complete details as per notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee also produced the books of accounts along with the vouchers and supporting evidence in the course of assessment proceedings. After verification, the assessing officer accepted assessee’s return of income making addition of Rs.1,40,000/- as disallowance of labour and carting expenses. The books of accounts of the assessee are audited u/s 44AB of the Act and return of income is also supported by audit report in Form No. 3CB & 3CD. In support of the expenses, assessee furnished the bank statement, details of the expenses exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs debited in the trading account and details of the expenses exceeding Rs. 1 lakh claimed in the Profit and Loss account. Further, assessee also furnished the details of the sundry creditors along with PAN and address. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessee also furnished the details of turnover with gross profit and net profit along with Gross Profit and Net Profit ratio for the current year as well as preceding two years. The Gross Profit ratio and Net Profit ratio was more than the ratio of last two years. From the above facts, it is clear that assessee has filed complete details and also produced books of accounts along with the vouchers of the supporting documents. The observation of ld PCIT was wrong that assessee debited the expenses under the head ‘other expenses’. We note that assessee debited the expenses under the specific head in the audited trading and profit and loss account. Since there are no specific heads in the return of income prescribed by the Government of India therefore certain expenses were clubbed under the head “other expenses” while filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. The ld PCIT raised the issue in respect of said “other expenses” (which were there in the assessee`s tax audit report under various heads), without having verified with the assessee`s tax audit report and therefore reached on a wrong conclusion, which is not acceptable in the eye of law.
ITA No.933/AHD/2017 Assessment Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal 15. We note that it is a well settled legal position that in order to exercise the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, both conditions viz: order of the assessing officer should be erroneous and assessment order should be prejudicial to the interest of revenue, should be cumulatively satisfied by the ld. PCIT. The reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT v/s. Minalben S. Parikh – 215 ITR 81 (Guj.) and the decision of Hon`ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v/s Gabriel India Ltd. – 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). In this case it was held that “there must be material before commissioner to satisfy him, prima facie, that the two requisites are present. Power cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of the commissioner”. It has been held in the case of CIT v/s Amit Corporation – Tax Appeal No. 2583 of 2010 (Guj.) that “When, during the course of framing of the assessment, the Assessing Officer had access to all the records of the assessee, after pursuing such record the Assessing Officer framed the assessment, such assessment could not have been re-opened in exercise of revision power under Section 263 of the Act for making further inquiries.”
In this regard reliance is also placed upon decision of Hon`ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Ganpat Ram, Bishnoi [296 ITR 0292] wherein it was held that “no presumption can be drawn that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to various aspects of the matter. Once enquiry in fact has been conducted and the Assessing Officer has reached a particular conclusion, though reference to such enquiries has not been made in the order of the assessment, the invocation of jurisdiction by CIT is not sustainable. If a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the assessing officer, which was answered to the satisfaction of the assessing officer, but neither the query nor the answer was reflected in the assessment order, this would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the order of the assessing officer called for interference and revision”. On the similar facts, the reliance is placed on the decision of Hon`ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [341 ITR 537] (Delhi HC). The assessing officer has made the proper inquiry which was adequate. If there was any inquiry even inadequate that
ITA No.933/AHD/2017 Assessment Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal by itself would give no occasion to the CIT to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter.
We note that Hon`ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Jain Construciton Co. – 257 CTR 336 (Raj.) Held, that: “safeguard provided to assessee in section 263 is that mere erroneous orders are not revisable but revisional authority has to further establish with material on record that such erroneous order is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue-twin conditions of assessment order being erroneous and it also being prejudicial to the interest of revenue, keeps initial burden on Commissioner, who invokes such jurisdiction. Premises for invoking the revisional jurisdiction on the ground that the Assessing Authority made insufficient inquiry or improper enquiry and fail to verify closing stock in record of the assessee, before passing assessment order, falls flat by a bare perusal of assessment order itself. Thus, Tribunal was justified in holding that Commissioner was in error invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263. Mere alleged insufficiency of inquiry in of opinion of Commissioner by Assessing Authority, would not permit him to in walk revisional jurisdiction u/s 263. Therefore, essential twin condition for invoking revisional jurisdiction, were not satisfied.”
Hon`ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 705/2017] has categorically held that for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 and reaching a conclusion that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, the ld. PCIT has to undertake some minimal inquiry and in fact where the ld. PCIT is of the view that AO had not undertaken any inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the ld PCIT to conduct such enquiry. We note that assessee has been maintaining books of accounts regularly in the same fashion as maintained in the past and the nature of the business also remained the same. For assessment year 2010-11 also the assessment was made under scrutiny on 01.03.2013 and only addition of Rs. 55,660/- was made. The assessee filed voluminous submission before ld PCIT, however, ld PCIT has not given any reasons in the order passed u/s 263 for holding that assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In case of CIT v/s. G. M.
ITA No.933/AHD/2017 Assessment Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal Mittal Stainless Steel P. Ltd. - 130 taxman 67 (SC) it was held by the Hon`ble Apex Court that power of Commissioner u/s 263 must be exercised on the basis of material that is available to him when he has exercised power. It was further held by Apex Court that PCIT should give the proper reasons.
In any event, we note that the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law and even if it has resulted in loss to the revenue, the said decision of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT,243 ITR 83(SC). Since the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in the facts and circumstances narrated above, the usurpation of jurisdiction exercising revisional jurisdiction by the Principal CIT is ‘’null’’ in the eyes of law and, therefore, we are inclined to quash the very assumption of jurisdiction to invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Learned Principal CIT. Therefore, we quash the revision order of the ld Principal CIT dated 23.03.2017 being ab initio void.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order is pronounced on 22/10/2021 by placing result on Notice Board.
Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat �दनांक/ Date: 22/10/2021 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File
By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat