TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified in relation to trade creditors and share application money; (ii) whether revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified in relation to the claim of expenses.
Issue (i): Whether revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified in relation to trade creditors and share application money.
Analysis: The Assessing Officer had called for details of sundry creditors, including confirmations, addresses, permanent account numbers and income-tax particulars, and the assessee had furnished the requisite material. The creditors were income-tax assessees and the transaction details were before the Assessing Officer. The amount referred to as share application money was found to be an opening balance, while the addition during the year was only a small amount for which evidence was available. On these facts, the assessment could not be treated as erroneous or prejudicial merely because a different view was taken in revision.
Conclusion: Revision under section 263 on this issue was not justified and was cancelled in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified in relation to the claim of expenses.
Analysis: The Assessing Officer had sought detailed particulars of expenses, and the assessee had produced the relevant accounts, vouchers, bills and receipts. The accounts were also audited. No material was brought to show that the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and the revision rested only on suspicion.
Conclusion: Revision under section 263 on this issue was not justified and was cancelled in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The revisionary order was unsustainable on the issues actually adjudicated, and the assessee succeeded in the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer has made adequate enquiry and the revision is based only on a different view or mere suspicion without material showing that the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
TaxTMI 
