Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 687 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - no enquiry or lack of enquiry - HELD THAT:- Although the ld. Pr. CIT reproduced the entire submissions made by the assessee in writing in his impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act, he did not give any finding or observation thereon and without arriving at any conclusion to show that the order of the AO was erroneous on merit, he simply set aside the same on the ground that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the various aspects and did not apply his mind to the facts of the case, which action of the PCIT cannot be countenanced for the reasons discussed infra. Before us, assessee reiterated the submissions made before the PCIT to demonstrate on the basis of relevant facts and figures that there were no errors in the order of the AO accepting the claim of the assessee on the relevant three issues on merit and we find that even the ld. CIT D/R has not been able to rebut or controvert the same. He has simply contended by relying on the impugned order of the ld. Pr.CIT that no enquiry or verification was made by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings on this issue and, therefore, it was a case of lack of enquiry. According to this Section if a fact is likely to have happened: i) in common course of natural events ; ii) according to general human conduct; iii) according to public and private business; iv) due to the relation to the facts of the particular case. Accordingly, the Court can presume the existence of that fact i.e. in this case we take the aid of illustration (e) to section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, which helps us presume “judicial and official acts have been regularly performed”. So we presume in the facts and circumstances, and after going through the relevant pages of the PB that AO has regularly performed his duties. Since from perusal of the papers filed before the AO itself (PB) we are convinced that there was no error as wrongly assumed by Ld. PCIT. Therefore the Ld. PCIT erred in assuming revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the action of AO - the impugned order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act is without jurisdiction and so liable to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|