C.I.T. vs. M/S V.D.MOTORS PVT.LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/144/2006HC RajasthanRJHC01027318200604 January 2007Bench: RAJESH BALIA,CHATRA RAM JAT3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT passed under Section 263 was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the CIT's order lacked the necessary pre-condition of an "erroneous" assessment. While the CIT pointed to certain specific inquiries that ought to have been made, the CIT did not demonstrate how the absence of these inquiries led to any error in the AO's assessment. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT that the order of the AO was not erroneous, and the CIT had not himself made any inquiry to prima facie establish that a different result would have been achieved. The Tribunal also noted that a remark by the Tribunal that the order might be prejudicial to the revenue was uncalled for, as there was nothing to suggest prejudice. Therefore, the revisionary order of the CIT was rightly set aside.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Bikaner, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had set aside an order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT had invoked Section 263 to revise the assessment order for Assessment Year 2000-2001, stating that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not conducted certain specific inquiries, making the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ITAT, however, found that the AO had indeed conducted detailed inquiries and that the CIT had not demonstrated how the AO's findings were erroneous.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in setting aside the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which revised the assessment order for Assessment Year 2000-2001. Assessee's Contention (as per ITAT's findings): The assessee argued, and the ITAT found, that the AO had conducted detailed inquiries in all matters pointed out by the CIT. The ITAT noted that the CIT had not specified how any of the AO's findings were erroneous, relying merely on the assumption that certain inquiries were not made. Revenue's Contention (as per ITAT's findings): The revenue, through the CIT, contended that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because specific inquiries were not held or concluded. The CIT's order was based on the belief that these omissions led to an erroneous assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 7 D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.144/2006. [COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER VS. M/S V.D.Motors PVT. LTD.]

DATED : 04.01.2007 HON'BLE MR. RAJESH BALIA, J. HON'BLE MR. CHATRA RAM JAT, J. Mr.K.K.Bissa for appellant. ***** Heard learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The Tribunal has found that the income of the assessee assessed for the Assessment Year 2000-2001 by the Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of his power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 considered that in certain matters referred to in the order certain specific inquiries were not held or concluded, that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and set aside the order of the assessment. He directed the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment after holding detailed inquiry. On appeal, the Tribunal found that in all matters pointed out by the CIT, the Assessing Officer did hold detailed

2 inquiries, the CIT had not found in what manner any of the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer is erroneous. Merely on basis of assumption that because of some specific inquiry has not been made the conclusion that order is erroneous cannot be sustained. We are in agreement with the learned Tribunal that the order of the CIT does not reveal how and in what manner the order of Assessing Officer was erroneous except making general observation about certain inquiries ought to have been made, without even arriving at any conclusion that because such inquiry has not been made any error has crept into the order? He has not himself cared to make any inquiry in the areas referred to in the order at least to find prima facie that inquiry in that manner, if made, would have led to different result. Since, objecting opinion that assessment was erroneous is necessary pre-condition for exercise of power under Section 263, was not in existence, the order of revision has rightly been set aside by the Tribunal. We may observe that the order of the Tribunal an inadvertent passing remark has been made that the order is not erroneous but may be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue was

3 uncalled for. There is nothing to suggest that the order of the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in any manner. Such finding cannot be based on any presumption or assumption on surmises. The appeal is dismissed in liminme. [CHATRA RAM JAT], J. [RAJESH BALIA], J. mamta

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →