M/S FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal; “1. That the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income tax was wrong in invoking the power of revision u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2(1) That, the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income tax-I, Indore failed to appreciate that the necessary documents pertaining to the claim of deduction were before the Assessing Officer. 2(b) That, the learned Assessing Officer after applying his mind and after considering the past assessments completed by him allowed the deduction.

At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee relying on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Acme Fabrik Plast Co. V/s Income Tax Officer & Ors. (1995) 125 CTR (MP) 339 submitted that no opportunity for making oral submission was provided by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax before giving directions to the Ld. A.O to frame fresh assessment order in the order u/s 263 of the Act. He requested for granting one more opportunity to appear before the Ld. Pr. CIT for the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act.

Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative though supported the orders of Pr. CIT but did not oppose the request of providing one more opportunity to the assessee.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us.

Through this appeal assessee has challenged the action of Ld. Pr. CIT invoking power and revision u/s 263 of the Act. Assessee being limited company filed e-return on 26.9.2011 followed by revised return filed on 18.10.2012. Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 31.03.2014. Subsequently Pr. CIT initiated the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act observing that the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as no proper enquiry was made and the order was framed without application of mind and sufficient material.

Request of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee for providing one more opportunity of being heard goes unopposed by Ld. Departmental Counsel.

Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Acme Fabrik Plast Co. V/s Income Tax Officers & Ors (supra) has observed that “even though petitioner had taken precautions to file written submissions, this was not enough to assume that oral hearing is not required to be given and this is violation of principles of natural justice, as CIT has given direction in positive terms to decide in a particular manner”.

We, therefore respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble High Court and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, accept the request of Ld. Counsel for the assessee for setting aside the issue raised in this appeal to the file of Ld. Pr. CIT who will provide one more opportunity to the assessee to make oral submission and if required to make further written submission in order to complete the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard should be provided to the assessee.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.