Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (9) TMI 741

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng the correct position of law is certainly an order passed erroneously and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The case laws relied on by the counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and have no application to this case. Therefore, we hold that the Commissioner of Income Tax rightly invoked the provisions under section 263 of the Act directing the Assessing Officer to do the assessment de novo examining all the issues. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. - Decided against assessee. - I.T. A.No.984/Mds/2014 - - - Dated:- 19-8-2015 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. N. Devanathan, Advo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... held that assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assessee submitted that Assessing Officer had considered the details and income arising out of sale of lands as capital gains. However, on examining the records and perusing the assessment order, Commissioner of Income Tax was of the view that necessary enquiries were not made by the Assessing Officer on the activities of the assessee and therefore held that assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Thus he set aside the assessment for de novo consideration after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. 3. Counsel for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer has co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... etails in respect of activities of the assessee nor examined them and passed order without verifying the activities of the assessee and this made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and thus the Commissioner of Income Tax has properly exercised the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 5. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorities. In this case, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2011 accepting the income returned by the assessee. It is the submission of the assessee that Assessing Officer has examined the details furnished by the assessee in respect of activities of the assessee and accepted the computation of capital gains. Before us, the asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -owners along with the assessee and in what way the assessee is concerned with those persons is not clear from record. Further on a perusal of the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee dated 20.01.2014 which was made much later to the income tax assessment order for the assessment year 2009-10 dated 26.12.2011, we find that assessee is having agricultural lands at various places i. E. Rajakilpakkam, Madambakkam, Gowrivakkam, Ottiambakkam and Nathanallur and it is also not known as to the activities in these lands of the assessee whether they are only for investments or they are really doing business activities by the assessee. The Assessing Officer never examined all those things while completing the original assessment under section 143(3) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re, the order passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind is certainly an erroneous order and is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Mannulal Matadeen Vs. CIT (277 ITR 346) held that the Income Tax Officer had not made necessary enquiries before allowing the deduction of interest to Mannulal Matadeen on the credit balance and therefore, the order passed was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 7. The Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. (242 ITR 490) while examining the powers of Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 observed as under:- That the Commissioner found that the Income .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates