Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2005 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (6) TMI 211 - ITAT BANGALORE-BChallenged the Revision Order passed u/s 263 - barred by limitation - Powers Of Commissioner - Error in computation of tax - Mistake Apparent From Record - credit for Canadian tax - whether the claim is in accordance with relevant provision of DTAA with Canada and Thailand - Power u/s 154 invoked by AO - HELD THAT:- It is settled policy of law that there must be point of finality in all legal proceedings, that settled issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. These principles are required to be observed by all concerned in administration of statutory enactments. It is not the case that there is any mistake in giving effect to appellate order by Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, under section 263(2), an order sought to be revised cannot be so revised after expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which such order was passed. We accordingly hold that since the CIT has sought to revise an assessment order dated 27-2-1997, the same is outside the limitation period prescribed u/s 263(2). In this case, it is seen that before the order u/s 143(3) was passed, the assessee was required to explain how he has claimed the credit in respect of Canadian tax and Thailand tax by its letter dated 17-3-1999. In revision, learned CIT has merely set aside the order to re-work the credit in respect of Canadian and Thailand tax claimed under DTAA provision without mentioning any error in the original order sought to be revised. In our opinion, this is not permissible course under the provision of section 263 of the Act. The order cannot be set aside for making roving enquiry without pointing any error in the order. Similar view has been adopted by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.[1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. The power of revision is not meant to be exercised for the purpose of directing the officer to hold another investigation when the order of Assessing Officer is not found to be erroneous. Similar view has been adopted by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Sakthi Charities [2000 (2) TMI 75 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. For making a valid order u/s 263(1), it is essential that Commissioner has to record an express finding to the fact that the order sought to be revised, is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In absence of any such finding, the order u/s 263 is liable to be set aside. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer has not given the credit without verifying the details. The Assessing Officer not only once but twice called for the details as well as to what extent the claim is allowable. After satisfying himself, the Assessing Officer has allowed the claim. It is a different thing that the Commissioner may not agree with such a view, but if the view adopted by Assessing Officer is one of the possible views, revision cannot be resorted to on the ground that the Commissioner do not accept such view or that necessary enquiry has not been made in this regard. An order of revision by Commissioner cannot be upheld on a different ground than the ground on which it has been revised. If the Commissioner has revised on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified the details and the facts reveal that the claim has been properly verified after necessary application of mind, the power of revision is not available. It is true that if a claim has been allowed without making necessary enquiry required for the purpose, the Commissioner can revise the order by setting aside the original order and directing the Assessing Officer to make further enquiries. However, if necessary enquiry has been made and satisfaction of Assessing Officer has been arrived at, though not clearly mentioned in the assessment order, such order cannot be revised on the ground that the claim has been allowed without verifying the relevant provision of law. We once again mention that without pointing out an error in the assessment order, the Commissioner is not justified in passing an order in revision directing the Assessing Officer to make further enquiries. We accordingly set aside the order of learned CIT for assessment year 1996-97. In the result, all the appeals are allowed.
|