C I T ALWAR vs. M/S ALLORA SERVICE STATION

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT DB INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.84/2015. Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar. Vs. M/s. Allora Service Station, Kumher Gate, Alwar. Date of order : 03.11.2016. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI Ms. Parinitoo Jain for the appellant. BY THE COURT: 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee and quashed the order of CIT under Section 263 of the Act. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in quashing the order of the CIT passed u/s 263 specifically when the Assessing Officer did not carry out proper inquiry and the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in quashing the order of the CIT specifically when after examining the record the CIT found that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and so direction for fresh assessment was given in accordance with the powers conferred u/s 263?” 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has committed error in disregard to the

-2- provisions of law under Section 194 C of the Act and has wrongly observed as under: “2.10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. We find merit in the argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that M/s. BPCL awarded contract to the assessee subject to arrangement of dedicated tanker for supply of petroleum products. This was arranged by the assessee by way of a tanker owned by associate concern. BPCL paid the transportation to assessee which is credited by it in the a/c of AKHK only and TDS is claimed by it as per certificate. From the assessment records, it emerges that the AO asked the queries which have been replied by the assessee. The AO in his order has clearly mentioned that relevant records were produced and verified on test check basis and the assessment was framed after discussions, the information/ letter supplied by the assessee stands on record. This leads to an inference that AO has considered all the relevant aspects about the assessment, and there is no case of lack of enquiry in this behalf during assessment. The level of enquiry in assessment proceedings is always a debatable proposition depending on the authority concerned. It has been held that conceptual difference on the manner of inquiry cannot make the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Even on merits, there is no loss to the Revenue inasmuch as it is not disputed that tanker receipts surplus has been shown by AKHK and is asssessed at same rate. All the transactions are duly disclosed and it cannot be held that AOs order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue.” 4. The Tribunal has thus given a finding that all the transactions are duly disclosed and it cannot be held that AOs order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. In that view of the matter, the observation made by the Tribunal is just and proper and no substantial question of law arises for consideration. We confirm the same.

-3- 6. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. (MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI), J. (K.S. JHAVERI), J. bblm