TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts, clearly indicates that assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was framed by the Assessing Officer after obtaining necessary details from the assessee and further the same were examined by him. Therefore, even if, the same has not been spelt elaborately in the assessment order it cannot be said that there is a ‘lack of enquiry’ or ‘prejudice’ has been caused to the Revenue, as we have discussed various case laws in earlier part of this order which are identical to the facts before us. Our view is further fortified by the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal (wherein one of us i.e. JM is signatory to the order ) in the case of Mehta Trading Company (2014 (11) TMI 292 - ITAT MUMBAI) which is also on identical facts/issue. The Commissioner invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 with respect to commission of ₹ 2,12,136/- at the rate of ₹ 25 per piece to Rajendra Jain and Kiran Jain by observing that no such commission was paid in earlier year for similar sales. The assessee explained that commission was paid to these parties for looking after the logistic issue. We find that the assessee vide letter dated 11/07/2011, addressed to the Ld. DCIT, in response to notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 27/06/2014. 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing of feeding bottles and accessories. The assessee showed total turnover of ₹ 2,40,72,048/- and offered gross profit of ₹ 99,20,394/- at the rate of 41.21% of the total turnover. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) at the rate of 25% of the total profit of ₹ 65,39,181/- after reducing the brought forward losses of ₹ 3,44,910/-. The assessee declared income of ₹ 49,04,386/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, therefore, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee. In response to these notices, the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and filed various details called for (as is evident from page-1 of the assessment order itself). After scrutiny of various details filed during the course of assessment proceedings and after examination of return of income, an annexure thereto, after having making the discussion made cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer is concerned under the facts narrated in this order, reliance can be placed upon the ratio laid down in following cases:- i. CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) ii. CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674)(Del.) iii. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (294 ITR 310) (Del.) iv. Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT (263 ITR 437) (P H) v. CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (323 ITR 206) (Bom.) vi. RCI Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 40 DTR Mum (Trb.) 186 vii. Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT(2014) (100 DTR 1)(Mum.)(Trb.) and viii. CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83(Del.) ix. CIT vs Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) x. CIT vs Sunbeam Auto 189 taxman 436 (Del.) 2.3. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in International Travel House Ltd. (344 ITR 554) held that the ld. Commissioner has no unfettered power to initiate proceedings by revision for reexamining and directing fresh enquiry on his own whim for change or having a different view. 2.4. If the observation made in the assessment order, notices issued to the assessee along with questionnaire, reply filed by the assessee along with documents/details, objections/observations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer. Identical ratio was laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT (2014) 100 DTR (Mum.) (Trb.) 1, order dated 10/1/2014. In another case from Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Limited (2010) 323 ITR 206, on identical fact wherein assessment order was passed after considering all details called for and furnished by the assessee. The ld. Commissioner invoked revisional jurisdiction on the ground that enquiry was not conducted, the Hon'ble High Court held that the ld. Commissioner was not justified in invoking the revisional jurisdiction. Identical is the situation from Hon'ble High Court Punjab Haryana in Hari Iron Trading Company vs. CIT (263 ITR 437) order dated 23/5/2003. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Eicher (294 ITR 310) (Del.) wherein the entire material was placed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment, the Assessing Officer applied his mind to the material and accepted the view canvassed by the assessee and mere fact that he did not express this in the assessment order, cannot be a ground to conclude t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave discussed various case laws in earlier part of this order which are identical to the facts before us. Our view is further fortified by the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal (wherein one of us i.e. JM is signatory to the order ) in the case of Mehta Trading Company (ITA No.2838/Mum/2013), order dated 31/10/2014, which is also on identical facts/issue. 2.7. It is also noted that the Ld. Commissioner invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 with respect to commission of ₹ 2,12,136/- at the rate of ₹ 25 per piece to Rajendra Jain and Kiran Jain by observing that no such commission was paid in earlier year for similar sales. The assessee explained that commission was paid to these parties for looking after the logistic issue. We find that the assessee vide letter dated 11/07/2011, addressed to the Ld. DCIT, in response to notice u/s 142(1) clarified the factual matrix and again vide letter dated 26/07/2011 addressed to Ld. DCIT duly furnished the partywise details of commission paid with name, address and purpose (all these documents are available in the paper book of the assessee). The zerox copy of agreement and credit note was also enclosed along with the mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
