1988 (6) TMI 70 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds CIT's Decision to Cancel Assessment Orders for 1981-84 Under IT Act

PUSHPA DEVI TRUST. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT's decision to cancel the assessment orders for the years 1981-82, 1982-83, and 1983-84 under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the assessment orders passed by the ITO under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.2. Whether proper and relevant enquiries were made by the ITO before passing the assessment orders.3. Whether the assessments were completed in undue haste.4. Examination of the genuineness of the trust and its beneficiaries.5. Application of Sections 161 and 166 of the IT Act in the assessment process.6. Requirement of a speaking order by the ITO.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the assessment orders passed by the ITO under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961:The CIT, Agra, cancelled the assessments for the years 1981-82, 1982-83, and 1983-84 under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. The assessments were considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The ITO had accepted the income returns filed by the trust without proper scrutiny and declared the income exempt without adequate justification.2. Whether proper and relevant enquiries were made by the ITO before passing the assessment orders:The CIT observed that the ITO did not make any significant investigation into whether the trust carried on business, the source of its capital, or the genuineness of the income shown. The ITO failed to verify the trust's bank accounts, trade name, or the actual business operations. The assessments were completed within nine days of filing the returns, indicating a lack of thorough enquiry.3. Whether the assessments were completed in undue haste:The assessments were completed within an unusually short period of nine days, from the filing of the returns to the completion of the assessments. This haste was evident and raised concerns about the thoroughness of the enquiries made by the ITO. The CIT concluded that such a short time frame was insufficient for conducting proper investigations, especially given the nature of the business and the substantial income declared.4. Examination of the genuineness of the trust and its beneficiaries:The CIT noted that the trust was created with a paltry sum of Rs. 500, which was improbable to generate substantial income. The ITO did not verify the existence and genuineness of the beneficiaries or whether the trust fund was utilized for their benefit. The ITO's conclusion that the income in the hands of the trust was exempt was based on an erroneous understanding of the law.5. Application of Sections 161 and 166 of the IT Act in the assessment process:The ITO did not clarify whether the assessments were made under Section 161 or Section 166 of the IT Act. The CIT emphasized that the ITO must decide on relevant considerations and choose the appropriate procedure. The ITO failed to assess the trust or the beneficiaries properly, leading to erroneous and prejudicial orders.6. Requirement of a speaking order by the ITO:The CIT highlighted that the ITO must pass a speaking order under Section 143(3). The assessment orders in question lacked detailed findings and explanations, making them non-speaking and thus erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT that the ITO did not record findings in a speaking manner, which was necessary to balance the interests of the assessee and the Revenue.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT's decision to cancel the assessment orders and direct the ITO to proceed afresh with the returns filed by the trust. The appeals were dismissed, and the Tribunal agreed that the assessments were made without proper enquiries, in undue haste, and without recording speaking findings, making them erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue.