SH. SURINDER MAHENDRU,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT-1, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 774/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 April 2018AY 2012-1321 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's inquiries were sufficient, as the assessee had provided all necessary details and the overall financial results were positive. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's action under Section 263 was not justified.

What were the facts?

The Principal CIT invoked Section 263, deeming the Assessing Officer's assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to alleged insufficient inquiries into major expenses, stock valuation, and creditor genuineness. The assessee argued that adequate information was provided during the original assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the Principal CIT correctly invoked Section 263 by deeming the Assessing Officer's assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to alleged inadequate inquiries. Whether the Assessing Officer conducted sufficient inquiries during the original assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 36(1)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

Before: MS.DIVA SINGH & MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Abrol, CIT DR
Hearing: 23.01.2018Pronounced: 20.04.2018

per the Pr. CIT there was no apparent anomaly in the same

but could have revealed something if delved into deeper. So

also vis-a-vis stock and creditors with respect to which

satisfactory replies were filed by the assessee and we note

that it was also pointed out to the Pr.CIT that stock

valuation had been examined and confirmations of some

creditors filed in succeeding years assessment proceedings,

which fact has been acknowledged by the Ld.Pr.CIT also.

The fact that all creditors were old and reputed parties and

that the assessee was an excisable unit maintaining all

records of goods produced and consumed was also

submitted to the Pr.CIT. Why then should the Assessing

Officer be inquiring further about stock statements

submitted to bank or reports of audit of excise records is

beyond our understanding. Simply because in the view of

the Ld. Pr.CIT certain other aspects also needed to be

looked into, which could have brought to light certain

discrepancies, does not make Assessing Officer’s enquiry

inadequate. If the enquiry conducted during assessment

and the details are sufficient enough to lead an ordinary

man to be satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the

assessee and there is nothing suspicious or out of place in

the details or submissions to prompt further enquiry into

the issue, we see no reason why the Assessing Officer

should have enquired further on the issues. After all the

exercise of assessment envisaged in the Act is logically for

the satisfaction vis-a-vis the correctness of the incomes

returned to tax and consequently various claims made by

assessees. There cannot logically be any mandate ,nor has

the same been shown to us, requiring 100% checking of all

aspects during assessments. The same is not humanly

possible. The exercise done by the Assessing Officer in the

present case by broadly examining the results of the

assessee and being sufficiently satisfied with the same ,we

see no reason why the Assessing Officer should have gone

into the specifics and delved and inquired deeper into other

issues. At this rate the exercise of assessments becomes a

never ending one and all assessments would be held

erroneous since it is humanly not possible to make 100%

enquiry on all issues in assessment proceedings.

32.

In view of the above, we hold that the present is not a

case of insufficiency of enquiry conducted by the Assessing

Officer and, therefore, the order cannot be said to be

erroneous so as to cause prejudice to the Revenue.

The action of the Ld. Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act is,

therefore, set aside.

33.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court. Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 20th April, 2018 *Rati* Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(pA) 4. The CIT 5. The DR Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →