2018 (4) TMI 1721 - HC - Income Tax

High Court Affirms Tribunal Decision on Tax Appeal, Emphasizes Assessing Officer's Due Diligence

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 Versus SHREE GAYATRI ASSOCIATES

The High Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision to cancel the Commissioner of Income Tax's order under Section 268 of the Income Tax Act. The ... Revision u/s 263 - AO had failed to carry out proper inquiries with respect to assessee’s on-money receipts - Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, reversed the order of Commissioner - HELD THAT:- In such judgment, the Tribunal observed that in the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer had raised multiple queries calling upon the assessee’s response. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer had carried out detailed inquiries. The Commissioner was incorrect in holding that no inquiries were carried out. The revisional powers, therefore, could not have been exercised. Tribunal has in the impugned judgment referred to the detailed correspondence between Assessing Officer and the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings to come to a conclusion that the Assessing Officer had carried out detailed inquiries which includes assessee’s on-money transactions. It was on account of these findings that the Tribunal was prompted to reverse the order of revision. Appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Validity of the order of the Appellate Tribunal canceling the order of CIT under Section 268 of the Income Tax Act.2. Justifiability of the Appellate Tribunal's decision regarding the jurisdiction of the Principal CIT under Section 263 of the Act.3. Correctness of the Appellate Tribunal's decision regarding the application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the jurisdiction of the CIT under Section 263 of the Act.Issue 1:The first issue in this case revolves around the validity of the order of the Appellate Tribunal canceling the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 268 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal reversed the Commissioner's order, which was based on the grounds that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the impounded material. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the Assessing Officer had indeed conducted detailed inquiries and raised multiple queries during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's conclusion of no inquiries being carried out was incorrect, leading to the reversal of the revisional order. The High Court, after examining the documents on record, upheld the Tribunal's findings and dismissed the Tax Appeal.Issue 2:The second issue concerns the justifiability of the Appellate Tribunal's decision regarding the jurisdiction of the Principal CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner exercised the power of revision under Section 263, deeming the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's assessment, stating that the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed inquiries, including on-money transactions. The Tribunal's finding that the revisional powers could not have been exercised was upheld by the High Court, which found no question of law arising and subsequently dismissed the Tax Appeal.Issue 3:The third issue pertains to the correctness of the Appellate Tribunal's decision regarding the application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the jurisdiction of the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner asserted that the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order without due application of mind, leading to the exercise of revisional powers. However, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing the detailed correspondence between the Assessing Officer and the assessee during the assessment proceedings, indicating thorough inquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, stating that the Assessing Officer had indeed carried out detailed inquiries, including on-money transactions. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, concluding that no question of law arose in this matter.