Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2006 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (7) TMI 350 - ITAT DELHIRevision u/s 263 - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Whether CIT was justified in setting aside the assessment order made after making proper enquiries and to hold that the order of Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue? - HELD THAT:- As per the letter of assessee, it is clear that the vouchers in regard to the purchases and expenses were produced and verified. The Assessing Officer after verification of such details, was satisfied and hence, no addition/disallowances have been made. Though such verification is not reflected in the assessment order, the record and even the order of CIT leads to the conclusion that the details were filed and the same were examined. Thus, it is not a case that the Assessing Officer has failed to make the enquiries which are called for in the circumstances. CIT has not pointed out any error much less an error prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The entire assessment has been set aside with a direction to make fresh assessment in accordance with law. However, the CIT has not found that the assessment made is not in accordance with law. It is settled law that an assessment has to attain a finality and unless the same falls within the power either u/s 147 or 263, the assessment as made by the Assessing Officer is to be treated as final. The power u/s 263 can be invoked only when either an error in factual appreciation or an error of law has been demonstrated. We find that the Assessing Officer has made reasonable, detailed enquiries and after processing the material utilized the same for completion of the assessment. Thus, the observation of CIT that the assessment order is passed without proper consideration of facts and without making proper, requisite and desired enquiries is untenable so as to conclude that the order of Assessing Officer was erroneous. We accordingly find that the order of Assessing Officer is not erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order of CIT is accordingly set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
|