TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made on or after the date specified in the notice on the basis of the relevant material collected. Therefore, there appears to be no infringement of the procedure as prescribed under subsection (3) of Section 143 of the Act. The CIT(C) in its order has clearly recorded that the assessee had attended the proceedings and had not challenged the same. In view of the above finding, we are unable to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the Revenue that the procedure prescribed under Section 143(3) of the Act was not followed by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the CIT(C) had rightly exercised the revisional power. The assessment orders clearly indicate the manner of computation of the income of the assessee for the purposes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 15th February, 2002 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad passed in respect of the assessment years 1987 88, 1988 89 and 1989 90. The respondent-assessee had filed returns of Income for the relevant years declaring some taxable income whereupon notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) were issued. In the meantime, search and seizure operations were conducted upon the assessee. In pursuance thereto, the assessee filed revised returns declaring some additional income. The revised returns were accepted on the same date under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto the assessment records, ignoring the fact that in the notice u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 it is clearly mentioned that the notice u/s 263 has been issued after scrutiny of case records? A bare reading of the above questions reveal that in pith and substance the contention of the Revenue is that the appellate tribunal is not right in setting aside the order of the CIT(C). Therefore, the only question of law which may arise is whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate tribunal was justified in holding that the CIT(C) has wrongly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act . The question whether an order passed by the appellate tribunal is right or wrong or that it has rightly or wrongly set-asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. Explanation...... (2) ................. ..................... A reading of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that to exercise the jurisdiction of revision under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of mind, that the Revenue contends that the CIT(C) has rightly exercised revisional jurisdiction. However, the non application of mind by the Assessing Officer is sought to be inferred for the reason that the revised return were accepted on the date they were submitted and without following the procedure prescribed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The relevant part of Section 143(3) of the Act reads as under: 143(3) On the day specified in the notice issued under sub-section (2), or as soon afterwards as may be, after hearing such evidene as the assessee may produce and such other evidence as the Assessing Officer may require on the specified points, and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... framed u/s 143(3) does not suffer from the infirmity of issue of notice which could be prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessment is, therefore, not being cancelled on this ground. In view of the above finding, we are unable to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the Revenue that the procedure prescribed under Section 143(3) of the Act was not followed by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the CIT(C) had rightly exercised the revisional power. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahendra Kumar Bansal, Muzaffarnagar 2008 UPTC 1067 (Alld.) a Division Bench of this Court has held that mere fact that the assessment order was passed on the same and the returned income was accepted or that the order of the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
