TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment of the court was delivered by 1. M. M. Kumar J. This order shall dispose of I. T. A. Nos. 393, 394, 395 and 401 of 2007 which have been filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "the Act"). For the purposes of this judgment, the facts are being taken from I. T. A. No. 393 of 2007. 2. The appeal is directed against the order dated February 28, 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench B, Chandigarh in I. T. A. No. 475/Chandi/2005 in respect of the assessment year 2000-01. It has been claimed that the following substantial questions of law would arise for determination of this court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer was also directed to give effect to various provisions of the Act in respect of charging of interest including withdrawal of interest under section 244A of the Act while computing the additional tax liability. The assessee further challenged the said order before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "B", Chandigarh. The Tribunal vide order dated February 28, 2007, allowed the appeals and cancelled the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated March 24, 2005. The Tribunal in paragraph 16 of its order considered the issue as to whether the order of the Assessing Officer was so erroneous as to warrant exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the Department did not deny the filing of the aforementioned documents which were certified to have been filed by the Revenue authorities. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Assessing Officer had accepted the claim of the assessee on the basis of the contentions advanced before him. The Tribunal extensively quoted the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ind Sphinx Precision Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR (A. T.) 17 (Chandigarh) in I. T. A. Nos. 549 and 550/Chandi/2004 for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 and went on to observe that the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. M. Chidambaram Pillai [1977] 106 ITR 292 would be squarely applicable in respect of salary paid to partners yet it also accepted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83, the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction under section 263 to set aside the assessment order(s) in the case of the assessee in so far as the Assessing Officer has accepted one of the possible views convassed before him by the assessee. It is also noteworthy that the assessee has not escaped the taxation in respect of interest allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the firm in so far as the partners have paid the taxes on such income in their individual assessments. Therefore, it cannot be said that great prejudice has been caused to the Revenue by accepting the view considered view that the order passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of revenue ; or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. It has been held by this court that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC)." (emphasis added) 6. It is thus evident that the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner of Income-tax would not enjoy the revisional jurisdiction as has been held by the hon'ble Supreme Court in Ralson Industries Ltd.'s case [2007] 288 ITR 322. However, if there are other compelling reasons then the matter would lie entirely in different area and the Commissioner would have the revisional jurisdiction as is the situation in the present case. Therefore, we are not impressed with the argument raised on the basis of the judgment in the case of Ralson Industries Ltd.'s case [2007] 288 ITR 322 (SC). Therefore, we have no hesitation to reject the aforementioned argument. Consequently, all the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. 8 . A copy of this order be placed on the files of all connected appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
