Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 199 - AT - Income TaxScope of revision u/s 263 - issues on which the provisions of section 263 were invoked were not involved in the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) - Held that:- Since there is no original assessment in the case in hand and the reassessment is the first order of assessment by the Assessing Officer; therefore, the Assessing Officer was expected to apply his mind on all the issues to see whether the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer ought to have exercised due diligence and minimum enquiry as expected from ordinary prudent person acting as a quasi judicial authority being an Assessing Officer. Once the assessment has been reopened, the Assessing Officer was expected to follow all the relevant general provisions for framing the assessing as in the case of regular assessment and find out whether any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment or not. In the case in hand, the assessee has not challenged the disallowance as proposed in the revision order by the CIT on merits but has challenged the revision order only on technical/legal grounds. Therefore, when the claim, which was allowed by the Assessing Officer with out any examination and adjudication, but are not allowable, then the question of taking a possible view does not arise in the case in hand. In a case where the Assessing Officer allowed a claim without examining the records but there is possibility of taking a view in favour of the assessee, then it may be said that the Assessing Officer has taken a possible view. But when the claim of the assessee is not allowable and there is no possibility of two views, then allowing the claim by the Assessing Officer without examining and application of mind would definitely render the assessment order erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and Commissioner has the power to exercise the jurisdictional u/s 263. - Decided against assessee. Review application - Held that:- The Tribunal has taken a view after considering the various precedents as well as facts and circumstances of the case in particular. Therefore, it may be at the most an error of judgment but cannot be an apparent error from record which can be rectified under section 254(2). The jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 254(2) is very limited and circumscribed. It is settled proposition of law that only the mistake apparent on record can be rectified and not the point of dispute requires a long drawn reasoning and argument. A decision on merits after considering the facts and relevant law as well as the contentions of parties given by the Tribunal cannot be reviewed or revised in the garb of rectification of error under section 264(2). Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review or revise its own order passed on the merits of the case and based on detailed reasoning. - Decided against assessee.
|