TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the assessees. - But in the present case, AO did not make befitting inquiry in the given circumstances and the CIT has held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue We are concerned with a case in which the AO did not discharge the burden cast on him as regards the framing of assessment. In such circumstances, the ld. CIT stepped in to check his action. All the aspects of the assessment are required to be examined by the AO alone and no other authority. But if such an examination has not been done which has rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, then it is not only the right but the duty of the CIT to revise such an erroneous assessment, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... separate orders passed by the Commissioners of Income-tax (CIT) u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act') in relation to the captioned assessment years. Since these appeals are based on largely similar facts and common grounds of appeal, we are proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. Briefly stated the facts of these cases are similar inasmuch as returns were filed by such companies with meagre income; intimations were issued u/s 143(1); thereafter notices u/s 148 were issued either at the instance of such companies divulging a paltry escapement of income or otherwise; assessment orders were passed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 after making nomina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inable. B. Failure of the AO to give a logical conclusion to the enquiry conducted by him gives power to the CIT to revise such assessment order, by holding that :- i) the enquiry conducted by the AO in such cases can't be construed as a proper enquiry; ii) CIT u/s 263 can set aside the assessment order and direct the AO to conduct a thorough enquiry, notwithstanding the jurisdiction of the AO in making enquiries on the issues or matters as he considers fit in terms of section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, which is relevant only up to the completion of assessment ; iii) Inadequate inquiry conducted by the AO in the given circumstances is as good as no enquiry and as such, the CIT was empowered to revise the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company can be made u/s 68 in its first year of incorporation. G. After amalgamation, no order can be passed u/s 263 in the name of the amalgamating company. But, where the intention of the assessee is to defraud the Revenue by either filing returns, after amalgamation, in the old name or otherwise, then the order passed in the old name is valid. H. Order passed u/s 263 on a non-working day does not become invalid, when the proceedings involving the participation of the assessee were completed on an earlier working day. I. Order u/s 263 cannot be declared as a nullity for the notice having not been signed by the CIT, when opportunity of hearing was otherwise given by the CIT. J. Refusal by the Revenue to accept the writt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on this count and directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order as per law. He has not substituted his opinion for that of the AO and confirmed the addition. He has simply restored the matter to the AO for deciding the issue as per law and the decision of the AO may go either way. In such circumstances, this argument of the ld. AR has no applicability. 8. Another related argument was advanced that section 68 talks of the satisfaction of the AO as to the explanation given for cash credit. He accentuated on the words 'in the opinion of the Assessing Officer' as used in the language of the section. It was argued that the satisfaction should be that of the AO and not that o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reover that was appeal against the deletion of addition and not against the revisional order restoring the matter to the AO for making a proper and adequate inquiry. 10. The next objection of the ld. AR was that the proviso to section 68 cannot be considered as retrospective in view of several judgments including CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC), in which the levy of surcharge on income tax in case of block assessment has been held as prospective. We do not find any substance in the argument for two reasons. First reason is that this judgment does not deal with proviso to section 68 but with the levy of surcharge on income tax in case of block assessment. There is a lot of difference between the two provisions. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
