TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Income Tax is different from the view taken by the Assessing Officer. In this case, moreover it is evident from the order dated 28th August, 2011 of the Commissioner of Income Tax that enquiry into both the issues were conducted by the Assessing Officer before passing the assessment order dated 28th October, 2009. Thus, it is not a case of no enquiry which could make the order erroneous. An inadequate enquiry would not make the assessment order vulnerable as being erroneous. The view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view and nothing has been shown to us which would even remotely suggest that the conclusion reached by the Assessing Officer was perverse and / or arbitrary on the basis of the evidence available b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed 10% of conveyance allowance and other expenses on adhoc basis, determining the appellant assessee's total income at ₹ 6.67 lakhs. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax, in exercise of his powers under Section 263 of the Act by order dated 28th February, 2011, revised the assessment order dated 28th October, 2009 on the aforementioned two issues viz. amount of ₹ 52.50 lakhs paid as commission and also conveyance expenses, on the ground that the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The order dated 28th February, 2011 proceeded on the basis that the assessment order dated 28th October, 2009 was erroneous as both the above issues had not been examined. This resulted in disallowing payment of com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal. 7. It is a settled position of law that the Commissioner of Income Tax can exercise his power under Section 263 of the Act only on satisfaction of twin conditions i.e. the order being erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present facts, the view taken by the Assessing Officer on detailed examination of the issues, as is evident from the questionnaire posed to the respondent assessee and the response thereto during the assessment proceedings, on facts is a possible view. The view taken by the Assessing Officer does not became erroneous merely because the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax is different from the view taken by the Assessing Officer. This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. It may be said in such a case that in the opinion of the Commissioner the order in question is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. But that by itself will not be enough to vest the Commissioner with the power of sou motu revision because the first requirement viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent. ...... 8. In this case, moreover it is evident from the order dated 28th August, 2011 of the Commissioner of Income Tax that enquiry into both the issues were conducted by the Assessing Officer before passing the assessment order dated 28th Octo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
