Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 806 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - C.I.T. sustained on the principle of ‘erroneous’ nature of the order of the A.O - As per CIT there is increase in sales without increase in fixed assets, and there is increase in salary expenses also, which the assessing officer has not verified properly - Also there were two VAT returns filed by the assessee, and the assessing officer did not apply his mind as at why the assessee has filed two VAT returns - HELD THAT:- As during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has submitted justification of increase in sale, and increase in salary expenses. Assessee also submitted the justification of VAT returns and explanation about fixed assets - the Monthly VAT returns for the Month of July and October, the annual VAT return, the acknowledgement of Return of Income and Computation of total income, tax audit report along with audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss account, the ledger account of advertisement expenses, the justification for increased sale due to Diwali festival etc. We note that AO made sufficient enquiry and applied his mind also. Hence, assessment order passed by the assessing officer should not be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. AO was satisfied, after making an enquiry and examining the evidence produced by the assessee. The PCIT in his order of Revision does not indicate any doubts in respect of the examination of evidences and documents and to conduct further enquiry by the assessing officer. The satisfaction of the AO on the basis of the documents produced is not shown to be erroneous. This is a case where a view has been taken by the Assessing Officer on enquiry. Even if this view, in the opinion of the PCIT is not correct, it would not permit him to exercise power u/s 263 of the Act. The exercise aimed at ascertaining the correct income of the assessee has been fulfilled by the Ld. A.O. by exercising his quasi-judicial functions vis-a-vis passing the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act. Therefore, certainly it is not a case wherein adequate enquiries at the assessment stage were not carried out or assessment was made in haste. What is an opinion formed as a result of these enquiries and verification of the materials is something which is in exclusive domain of the AO and even if Ld. Pr. Commissioner does not agree with the results of such enquiries, the resultant order cannot be subjected to revision proceedings. Provisions of section 263 of the Act do not permit substituting one opinion by another opinion. Therefore, the order of the C.I.T. cannot be sustained on the principle of ‘erroneous’ nature of the order of the A.O., as it is not erroneous. Decided in favour of assessee.
|