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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Commissioner was justified in exercising revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to set aside the assessment completed under section 143(1), on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not properly investigated the claim for deduction of interest paid or payable on borrowed funds.
Analysis: The assessment was made in a summary manner, and the record did not show that the necessary agreements, partition material, or other supporting evidence for the interest claim had been produced before the Assessing Officer. On the material available, the Assessing Officer could not have properly satisfied himself about the allowability of the deduction. The order, therefore, suffered from lack of enquiry and was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The objection based on the scope of the show-cause notice was rejected, since the notice did cover the core ground that the interest claim had not been properly examined.
Conclusion: The exercise of power under section 263 was upheld and the assessment order was rightly set aside for fresh consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: An assessment passed without proper enquiry into a material deduction claim is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, and is amenable to revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.