TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO and reply submitted by the assessee, it seems that all expenses have been looked into and verified by the AO. Thus on this point also the order of the AO cannot be held to be erroneous so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus without going into the merits of the issue raised, prima facie, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed u/s.263 by the CIT is unsustainable in law as the same has been passed without giving any proper opportunity to the assessee which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Appeal decides in favour of assessee - ITA No. : 3410/Mum/2008 - - - Dated:- 25-7-2012 - SHIRI G. E. VEERABHADRAPPA AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JJ. Appellant by : Shri Farrokh Irani Shri V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f sundry debtors / sundry creditors with their name and addresss. 7) Details of Bank accounts maintained and copy of Bank statement with narration of each entry therein. 8) Details of payment made to person specified u/s.40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act with jurisdiction. 9) Details of loans and advances shown in the balance sheet. 10) Details of mobilisation advance from BMRC. 11) Books of accounts alongwith bills and vouchers. 3. The said notice and the details as required was duly complied with by the assessee by reply dated 23.02.2005. Further the A.O. required the assessee to furnish the details vide query dated 18.03.2005 which was also duly complied with. After considering the entire details and evidences, the A.O. accepted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Stationery Auditor s Remuneration. The AO has not examined the expenses. Since you have not carried out any business of contract and instead the entire contract receipt was passed on to M/s. Gammon India Limited who executed the contract, the claim of expenses are not allowable. 5. For the reasons as stated above, the assessment order passed by the AO for A.Y. 2003-04 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and hence it is proposed to be revised u/s.263 of the I.T. Act 1961. 6. In case you have any objection in this regard, you may file the same on or before 27.03.2008 on which date your case is fixed for hearing at 11 A.M. in my office as mentioned above. 6. In response, the assessee has filed its detailed submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned in the notice are different from the findings given in the 263 order and secondly, the figures in the addition proposed under 263 are entirely different from what was given in the show cause notice. He submitted that such an order cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the several case laws. Regarding the issue of expenses for a sum of Rs..14,725/-, he submitted that the same was duly produced before the A.O. who has examined the issue and has allowed the expenses. The same cannot be again roped into 263 proceedings by the Ld. CIT merely to take a different view. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR submitted that the A.O. in his order has not explained anything as to what has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by the Assessee. 2. Direction : The Assessing Officer ( Assessing Officer ) may examine whether Rs..14,725/- were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. 9. Thus the content given in the show cause notice have neither been confronted to the assessee nor any enquiry or examination has been done by the Ld. CIT himself to reach to the conclusion drawn by him in the impugned order. From a bare reading of section 263, it is clear that Commissioner has to be satisfied with a twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the A.O. sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. If any one of them is absent, the jurisdiction u/s.263 fails. Further section 263 provides that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
