Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 832 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - addition of accumulated profits as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- It is a well settled proposition that a document should be read as a whole in order to understand the intent and purpose of the parties and to arrive at conclusion there-from. The said law is equally applicable to an assessment order. It should be read as a whole to understand as to whether or not the Assessing Officer has applied his mind on the facts before him. On going through the order passed u/s 143(3) we find that the AO after considering the plea of the assessee accepted that the transaction between the assessee and NGEPL was in the course of normal business, arrived at a conclusion that provisions of section 2(22)(e) are applicable only to the extent of funds utilised by the assessee for purchase of car and not for the balance amount. Thus, Assessing Officer has a possible view. We find that the decision relied upon by the assessee is relevant in the present case as the Assessing Officer has very much applied his mind on the issue and arrived at conclusion. Further, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that there must be material before the Commissioner to satisfy himself that two requisites provided u/s. 263 are present, otherwise power cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of the Commissioner. It is not permitted u/s 263 of the Act to substitute the judgment of the Commissioner for that of Assessing Officer unless the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. The order of the Assessing Officer cannot be termed as erroneous simply because Commissioner does not agree with the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer. In another case from Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Limited [2010 (2) TMI 161 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , in a similar situation, wherein assessment order was passed after considering all details called for and furnished by the assesses, the Commissioner invoked revisional jurisdiction on the ground that enquiry was not conducted; and the Hon'ble High Court held that the Commissioner was not justified in invoking the revisional jurisdiction. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order of the Commissioner is untenable in the eyes of law. Resultantly, we set aside the order of the Commissioner and restore the assessment order qua the issue relating to the enhancement of addition on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Decided in favour of assessee.
|