Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii vs. M/S S.K. Minerals

Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. S.K. Minerals 1 I.T.A. No. 52 / 2009 24.1.2014. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act is filed by the department challenging an order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jabalpur. Respondent firm filed a return of income for the assessment year 2003-2004 declaring the total income of `5,26,180/- as on 31.10.2003. The assessment was conducted by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and a total taxable income of `6,42,947/- was worked out, the order of Assessing Officer is Annexure A-1. However, invoking the jurisdiction available to him under Section 163, the Commissioner of Income Tax found that the assessment of income done is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, hence set aside the assessment order and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. An appeal is filed by the assessee before the Appellate Tribunal and the said appeal is allowed, therefore, this appeal by the revenue. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that when assessing officer found that the books of account of the assessee were unreliable, thereafter arrived at a valuation of income based on certain factors an error was committed and in remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer as the Commissioner (Appeal) has not committed any error, the tribunal should not have interfered into the matter. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. S.K. Minerals 2 We have heard the contentions and find that the tribunal went through the order of assessing officer and a judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Satpal Agrawal 293 ITR 90 and came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer having found certain mistake and short comings in the books of account, if makes a addition of the income which is sufficient in his opinion to compensate the loss of revenue to the department. The revisional authority cannot substitute its own decision to say that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is insufficient. It is found that until and unless the Assessing Officer has made a mistake in the matter of assessment of income and same is not borne out from the record, interference into the discretion exercised by the Assessing Officer is not necessary. It is found by the tribunal that if the Assessing Officer after holding that the books of account are not reliable, makes his own assessment based on enquires conducted by him which comes from books of account or from certain other sources and cames to a conclusion, then the decision taken by the Assessing Officer cannot be termed as illegal, so as to make interference into the matter. Considering all this aspects of the matter and placing reliance on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Satpal Agrawal (supra) the appellate tribunal has interfered into the matter. Nothing contrary is brought to our notice on the basis of which it can be held that an error of law is committed, therefore, no substantial question of law Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. S.K. Minerals 3 arises for consideration, the assessing officer has assessed the income by making certain addition based on his own opinion and have given cogent reasons for the same. There is nothing to say that the opinion and reason given by the assessing officer is wholly erroneous. If order of the Assessing Officer Annexure A-1 is taken note of it is seen that the Assessing Officer has given various reason for his assessment and, therefore, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, finding no substantial question of law arises for consideration the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) (A.K. SHARMA) J U D G E J U D G E ss/-