M/S PATRAM LEASE HOLDERS vs. C I T

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the C.I.T. was justified on facts and law in taking action u/s 263 thereby wrongfully setting aside the assessment and directing the A.O. to make it de novo by erroneously holding that there was proper service of notice which is factually and also legally bad in law?

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the law in confirming the action of C.I.T. u/s 263 in holding the action of the Assessing Officer in finalizing the assessment as erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue on the basis that the AO has not made proper inquiries though without specifying the same and thereby setting aside the assessment and directing the A.O. to make it de novo?

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the additional ground of the appeal: “ CIT did not call for and examined the assessment record and hence not satisfied that assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue before issue of show cause notice u/s 263” and therefore erred in assuming juri iction under Section 263 (1)” for want of evidence & being self serving assumption of facts?

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the law in confirming the action of C.I.T. u/s 263 by not applying his mind in view of the facts and evidences on record to prove that on the day of issuance of notice u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on dated 18.02.2002 the CIT was not even having assessment records so as to hold that the order of assessment as passed by the A.O. after complete verification of books of account and other relevant record,details, bills and vouchers and explanation was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue?

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the law in confirming the action of C.I.T. u/s 263 without considering the mandatory and principles of natural justice requiring the CIT to have allowed sufficient time to the appellant wherein in the present case the said principles have not been properly followed?

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the law in confirming the action of C.I.T. u/s 263 on the presumptions, assumptions and doubts as the said factors can never be the basis of certainty and acceptance to decide a vital matter of judicial and legal importance, so that so, the orders of the ITAT is perverse and thus bad in law?” The assessment was framed on 16.3.2000. Subsequently by order dated 18.3.2002 the C.I.T. Faridabad issued a notice under Section 263(1) of the Act directing the assessee to appear on 26.3.2002. By order dated 27.3.2002 passed under Section 263 of the Act the Assessing Officer (A.O.) was directed to frame fresh assessment. This order was challenged before the Tribunal who, while concurring with the Commissioner as to the desirability of a fresh assessment and after holding as a fact that the Commissioner had satisfied himself by perusing the record, however, set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner with the direction that he may issue show cause notice afresh upon the assessee and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law after allowing it a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Viewed against this background and more particularly keeping in view the fact that the matter has been remanded back to the Commissioner to decide the matter afresh, we are of the view that substantial questions of law proposed by the assessee do not arise in the present appeal. Consequently the same is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 09, 2008 sunita