Commissioner of Income Tax -VI vs. Sri Aditya Goel,

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/527/2014HC TelanganaHBHC01025256201405 August 20143 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax could only exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if there was a total non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the view taken by the Assessing Officer was absurd and unacceptable. In this case, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and taken a plausible view under the law. Therefore, the conditions for exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 were not satisfied. The High Court, agreeing with the Tribunal's reasoning, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal, upholding the ITAT's decision to set aside the CIT's order.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) - IV, Hyderabad, against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is Sri Aditya Goel, Proprietor of M/s. Vrindavan Steels, Hyderabad. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The core of the dispute revolves around the CIT's invocation of Section 263 powers, which the ITAT found to be unjustified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Tribunal was correct in interfering with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and taken a plausible view under the law? (Question of law) The Assessee's contention, as inferred from the Tribunal's reasoning, was that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the facts and arrived at a plausible view, thus precluding the CIT from exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The Revenue's contention, implied by the filing of the appeal, was that the CIT's order under Section 263 was valid and that the Tribunal erred in interfering with it. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments of either side beyond the core finding of the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

I.T.T.A.No.527 of 2014

DATED:5.8.2014

Between: Commissioner of Income Tax,-IV, Hyderabad.

… Appellant And

Sri Aditya Goel, Proprietor M/s. Vrindavan Steels, Hyderabad. ….Respondent

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

I.T.T.A.No.527 of 2014

Judgment : (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has interfered with the order of the Commissioner in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned Tribunal, on analyzing the record found that the Assessing Officer having applied his mind, taken a plausible view under the law. It is settled position of law that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income Tax is permissible only when there is total non-application of mind and absurd and unacceptable view is expressed. These conditions are not satisfied in this case. Hence, we dismiss this appeal. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No costs. __________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

_________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

5th August, 2014 pnb

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →