9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted with the power of revision u/s 263 of the Act? 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,83,277/-, Rs. 1,70,00,000/-, Rs. 50,579/- and Rs. 1,09,00,000/- made by the CIT?" 2. The Commissioner, Income Tax, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'C.I.T.') issued a show-cause notice under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') to the assessee on 09.08.2012 on the ground that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'A.O.') under Section 143(3) of the Act on 03.05.2011 was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The show-cause-notice mentioned that assessment order dated 03.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a credit of Rs. 59,00,000/- on 31.03.2009 by way of a cheque (cheque number was not mentioned) which was stated to be not encashed and subsequently claimed to have been returned after one year on 31.03.2010. Similarly ledger account of Benu Khetrapal in the account books of the assessee had reflected a credit of Rs. 50,00,000/- on 31.03.2009 by way of cheque (cheque number was not mentioned) which was stated to be not encashed and subsequently claimed to have been returned after one year on 31.03.2010. It was said that these transactions were not properly explained by the assessee as it was not clear as to when the assessee had further received deposits of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- in case of Shabnam Khetrapal and Rs. 70,00,000/- from Benu Khetrap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act only if on examination of records of any proceeding under the Act, he comes to the conclusion that any order passed therein by the Income Tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. However, this power is not an arbitrary and uncharted power and it can be exercised on fulfillment of requirements laid down under sub-Section (1) of Section 263 of the Act. Whether an order passed by the A.O. concerned is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue can be decided only on materials available on record of the proceedings. The Tribunal held that the A.O. in its assessment order has categorically decided the points raised for selection of scrutiny. Other points were also raised and written sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheques remained un-encashed and reflected in bank reconciliation statement of the bank. The Tribunal was of the view that the assessee had explained the amount of Rs. 1,09,00,000/-, the amount of two cheques which were not encashed and, therefore, it deleted the addition of Rs. 1,09,00,000/-. 8. We have heard Mr. Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Ashish Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. 9. It is clear that suo motu power under Section 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Commissioner if two conditions; firstly the assessment order passed is erroneous; and secondly the order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue are satisfied. The Commissioner, while exercising power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
