1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>s.263 revision upheld: Commissioner sets aside ITO order for erroneous acceptance of refunded excise duty without proper enquiry</h1> HC upheld the Commissioner's revision under s.263, setting aside the ITO's order as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. The court found the ITO had ... Legality of setting aside the Income-tax Officer's order u/s 263 - power of revision - erroneous and also prejudicial to the Revenue - refund of excise duty - HELD THAT:- The mere fact that a writ petition was pending or a suit was pending wherein a third party had claimed a portion of this amount could not have been a valid ground for claiming that the said amount should not be treated as the assessee's income. The Income-tax Officer had accepted the claim erroneously and that too without making proper enquiries. In view of these circumstances the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the Income-tax Officer's order was erroneous inasmuch as it was not passed after a full enquiry and a proper investigation and that it is also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We do not see any error in the exercise of the court's power or in the finding of the Commissioner that the Income-tax Officer's order is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Issues Involved: The validity of setting aside the Income-tax Officer's order u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act and directing a fresh assessment.Summary:The assessee received a refund of excise duty during the relevant year but claimed it should not be included in income due to pending claims by a third party. The Income-tax Officer accepted this claim, but the Commissioner found the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue as proper enquiries were not made. The Commissioner set aside the assessment for a fresh one. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, leading to an appeal by the assessee.Commissioner's Decision:The Commissioner held that the Income-tax Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue as proper enquiries were not conducted before accepting the claim. The mere existence of pending claims by a third party did not justify excluding the amount from the assessee's income. The Commissioner's decision to set aside the assessment was deemed appropriate and legal.Court's Analysis:The court found no error in the Commissioner's decision, stating that the Income-tax Officer's order was indeed prejudicial to revenue. The court referenced previous cases to support the Commissioner's authority u/s 263 to set aside an assessment for further enquiry if necessary and if the original order is detrimental to revenue.Conclusion:The court answered the question in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, upholding the Commissioner's decision to set aside the Income-tax Officer's order and direct a fresh assessment. No costs were awarded in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
