COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI AMBIKA PRASAD SHUKLA

PDF · subscribers
TAXC/57/2012HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01017497201224 July 2013Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal had considered all aspects of the matter and recorded a finding that the Assessing Officer (AO) had reached his conclusion after a detailed inquiry. The Court considered this a finding of fact. Based on this finding of fact, the Court determined that the AO's order could not be revised under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner. Therefore, the question of law was answered against the Department. The tax case was found to be without merit and was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Ambika Prasad Shukla, proprietor of Pawan Engineering Works, filed his income tax return for Assessment Year 2005-06, showing a Gross Profit (GP) rate of 9.79%. This was lower than the preceding year's GP of 12.4%. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted the declared GP rate after conducting a detailed inquiry. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT-A) revised the AO's order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the issues were not examined properly by the AO. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), which allowed the appeal. The Income Tax Department (the Department) has filed the present tax appeal against the Tribunal's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no case has been made out for invocation of powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner arising out of the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the Tribunal's decision, which was upheld, implies that the assessee argued that the AO had properly examined the issues and that the CIT-A's revision under Section 263 was unwarranted. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, argued that the CIT-A was justified in invoking powers under Section 263 because the AO had not examined the issues in the proper perspective. The revenue's appeal to the High Court is based on challenging the Tribunal's finding that Section 263 powers were wrongly invoked.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

sm •a IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR TAX CASE N0. ^ -^" /2012 m^ym APPELLANT vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Rai'pur Shri Ambika Prasad Shukla, Proprietor M/s •^•?:^^-^'**^. Pawan Engineering Works, RESPONbENT ^^$^- ^--•" Sadar Bazar, Raipur (CG). Aa^®A APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THEINCOME TAX ACT. 1961

^^<.:..^ f— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER, J TaxCaseNo.57of2012 Appellant : Resoondent : Writ Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur. VERSUS Shri Ambika Prasad Shukla Appearance: Shri Anand Dadaria, counsel for the Appellant. JUDGEMENT (25thJuly,2013) 1. This is a tax appeal against the order dated 10.02.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bilaspur (the Tribunal) allowing the appeal of Shri Ambika Prasad Shukla (the Assessee) in respect of the AssessmentYear (AY) 2005-06. THE FACTS 2. The Assessee is a contractor and works for Larsen & Turbo. He filed his return showing his Gross Profits (GP) at the rate of 9.79% as compared to GP of 12.4% in the preceding year. However, the Assessing Officer (the AO) after considering the detailed enquiry accepted the GP rate of 9.79% by his order dated 15.03.2010. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the CIT-A) revised the aforesaid order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that the issues were not examined by the AO in proper perspective. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. It was allowed on 10.02.2012. Hence, the present tax appeal by the Income Tax Department (the Department). THE DECISION 5. We have heard counsel for the Appellant. 6. This appeal was admitted on 21.08.2012 on the followjng substantial -^- question of law:

n "^^&^ 'Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no case has been made out for invocation of powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner arising out of the order passed by the Assessing Officer.' 7. The Tribunal after considering all the aspects of the matter has recorded a finding that the AO after considering the detailed enquiry has reached the conclusion. This is a finding of fact and on this finding the order of the AO could not be revised under section 263 of the Act. 8. In view of above, the question is answered against the Department. The tax case has no merit. It is dismissed. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge subbu

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →