Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
ITA-110-2024(O 106 (2 cases)
IN TH 1.
PRINCIPAL C
M/S DIN DAY
PRINCIPAL C
M/S DIN DAY
CORAM: H
H Present: M
SANJEEV P
CM-15510-CI
A respective app Main cases 1. The Re Appella ITA Ap O&M) and connected case Page 1 of 4 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME Vs.
YAL PURUSHOTAM LAL **** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME Vs.
YAL PURUSHOTAM LAL **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ
Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Stand for the appellant/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) II-2024 and CM-15690-CII-202 Applications for condonation of peals are allowed, and according evenue is in appeal assailing ate Tribunal (ITAT), whereby it ppeals for AYs: 2011-12, 2015-16 AB AND HARYANA AT RH Date of Decision: 16.12.2024 ITA-110-2024 (O&M) TAX, ROHTAK . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent ITA-112-2024 (O&M) TAX, ROHTAK . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA JAY VASHISTH ding Counsel (through VC) ) 4 f delay of 18 days in filing of gly delay is condoned. the order of the Income Tax decided by a common order in 6 and 2017-18.
4 )
t t )
t t f x n MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.17 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
ITA-110-2024(O 2. The Re be sub cancell Income 3. We hav ITAT w settled section reached had con as well deletion books, after ha have be 4. The Sup ITR 83 th C I to s A ( th e O&M) and connected case Page 2 of 4 evenue has filed two appeals an bstantial questions of law tha ing the order of the Pr.CIT pa e Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Ac ve carefully gone through the d who has reached to the conclusi by this Court with regard to th 263 of the Act. It has looked d to the conclusion that the Ass nducted a detailed enquiry and e l as queries had been particularl ns having been made by the conc the AO has added income in term aving looked into the bank accou een deposited, it reached to the c upreme Court in Malabar Industr 3 (SC) has held as under: “6. A bare reading of this p hat the pre-requisite to exercise Commissioner suo moto under it, Income-tax Officer is erroneous ins o the interests of the revenue. The satisfied of twin conditions, name Assessing Officer sought to be rev (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests hem is absent - if the order of th erroneous but is not prejudicial to t nd has raised questions stated to at the ITAT was not right in assed under section 263 of the ct’). detailed judgment passed by the ion after considering the law as he powers to be exercised under into the entire record and had sessing Officer (for short ‘AO’) examined the books of accounts ly raised relating to the issue of cerned AO. After examining the ms of the books of accounts and unts where the amounts found to conclusion. tries Co. Ltd. vs CIT, (2000) 243 provision makes it clear of jurisdiction by the is that the order of the sofar as it is prejudicial Commissioner has to be ely, (i) the order of the vised is erroneous; and of the revenue. If one of he Income-tax Officer is the revenue or if it is not
o n e e s r d ) s f e d o 3 MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.17 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
ITA-110-2024(O e c b e a in la e a a 5. We are Act can the AO caused to be er and for was don after co the AO the ord have be 6. We are conduc the ITA 7. Thus, w under s O&M) and connected case Page 3 of 4 erroneous but is prejudicial to t cannot be had to Section 263(1) of t 7. There can be no doubt th be invoked to correct each and ev error committed by the Assessing an order is erroneous that the secti ncorrect assumption of facts or an aw will satisfy the requiremen erroneous. In the same category fa applying the principles of natur application of mind.”
of firm view that the power con n be exercised only with respect O has not conducted the enquiry to the department. Sine qua non rroneous so far as it is prejudicia r the said purpose, a finding ha ne. If there are two views availab onducting enquiry, it cannot be O would be erroneous, and the C der of the AO on the said count een taken by the AO. e satisfied that there has been cting the enquiry. All the docum AT and a detailed judgment has b we find that the power of revis section 263 of the Act, being d the revenue - recourse the Act. hat the provision cannot very type of mistake or Officer; it is only when ion will be attracted. An incorrect application of nt of the order being ll orders passed without ral justice or without ntained under section 263 of the t to cases where it is found that y, and resultantly, loss has been n is that the assessment order has al to the interest of the Revenue, as to be arrived that no enquiry ble for the AO to take a decision said that the decision taken by CIT could not have turned aside that a different decision should no undue haste by the AO in ments have been looked into by een passed on facts of the case. sion as exercised by the Pr.CIT different from the powers to be
e t n s , y n y e d n y T e MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.17 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
ITA-110-2024(O exercis ITAT, t questio Accord 8. Appeal 9. All pen
December 16, Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe
O&M) and connected case Page 4 of 4 ed in appeal, is not sustainable therefore, does not warrant an n of law is required to be examin dingly, we do not find any merits ls are dismissed accordingly. nding applications also stand disp
(SANJ 2024 r speaking/reasoned?
Y r reportable?
Y in law. The order passed by the ny interference. No substantial ned by us in the present appeals. in the present appeals. posed of. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE
(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No
e l . MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.17 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document