TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities below and the CIT that action under s. 263 had been proposed by the ITO because of the audit objection based upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Hardit Singh Pal Chand (1979)120 ITR 289 (P H). On receipt of the proposal, the CIT issued a notice to the assessee to show cause why registration originally granted need not be set aside. After this, affording the assessee as opportunity of being heard, he made the impugned order by which he set aside the original order made by the ITO and directed him to pass fresh order after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.This under challenge before us. 3. Shri D.S. Gupta, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The revenue opposed these submissions. The senior departmental representative, Shri R.K.Bali, contended that initiative from the authorities working under the CIT for proposing action under s. 263 is not debarred by law in view of the ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Smt. Sumitra Devi Dhirwal (1972)84 ITR 26(Cal)The ld. departmental representative also contended that all statutory enactments are included in the word "record" used in s. 263. At the time of granting registration to the assessee originally, the ITO had not made any enquiries and when he does so, the order that results therefrom is an order which in law is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It was further contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s Rakesh Kumar Ravinder Kumar referred to supra. Both the sides adopted the arguments that were adduced in the said case in these proceedings. We have also considered the additional authorities cited before us in this case and we find that there is no justification for us to depart from the view that we have taken already in the case of Ramesh Kumar Ravinder Kumar. The facts show that the order made by the CIT was exactly on similar lines as in the case of Ramesh Kumar Ravinder Kumar and, therefore, for the reasons we have given therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the order made by the CIT was without jurisdiction. In this regard, the observations made by us in paras 14 and 15 of the said order are very pertinent. We, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
