TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (1) TMI 361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under s. 263 of learned CIT is bad in law being unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled for. 3. In the order passed under s. 263 of IT Act, 1961, the learned CIT has set aside the assessment order of the AO passed under s. 143(3) of IT Act, 1961, to pass a fresh assessment order as per law after carrying out necessary verification and enquiry/investigation in respect of issues discussed in the order under s. 263. The assessee has challenged the order passed under s. 263 being not in accordance with law. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee has invited my attention to the assessment order to show that the hearings of assessee had taken place from 8th Sept., 2000 to 27th March, 2002. He submitted that the AO has completed the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts of the present case. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee has invited my attention to the written submission filed before the CIT to show that it was submitted before him that the shares have been allotted to only three parties during the year under consideration. It was also explained that the share capital issued by the assessee-company was fully verified in the assessment proceedings. In the notice under s. 263, the learned CIT has referred to heavy investment in equity of the assessee-company by 5 companies. It was explained before the CIT that during the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1999-2000, it was only Raipur Veneers (P) Ltd. has made the investment in shares and the same was fully verified by the AO by calling thei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....70 lakhs, it was explained before the CIT that the aforesaid concern is owned by M/s G.K. Engineers & Consultants (P) Ltd. The aforesaid company is also assessed by the same AO and regular assessment under s. 143(3) has been completed in the said case. The learned CIT has not found the aforesaid submission of the assessee before him to be incorrect. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that in the order passed under s. 263, the learned CIT has referred to a report from the Investigation Wing-II, Raipur, which reflects unaccounted income of the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee invited my attention to the notice under s. 263 to show that no such issue was referred to in the notice issued under s. 263. The lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Jewellers (2000) 177 CTR (Guj) 546 : (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) (iii) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81 : (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (114-115) (iv) Ashoke Kumar Parasramka vs. Asstt. CIT (1998) 61 TTJ (Cal) 156 : (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) (Bench 'E') (v) Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 87 TTJ (Del) 93 : (2003) 131 Taxman 32 (Del)(Mag) (Tribunal Delhi, Bench) (vi) CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) (Madhya Pradesh High Court) (vii) GEC Alsthom India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (Tribunal, Calcutta Bench) (viii) Smt. Bagsu Devi Bafna vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 506 (Cal) The learned counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the order passed by the learned CIT under s. 263 does not indicate as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that the AO has not examined the additions to assets during the course of assessment proceedings and has also not enquired into the details of action taken by the Central Excise Department. It was further submitted that the AO has failed to take note of the report of the Investigation Wing-II, Raipur, referred to in the order passed under s. 263. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the order passed under s. 263 and submitted that there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee and it is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the facts and material available on record. I find substantial force in the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee. A perusal of the written submissions before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1961, on the vague ground that the AO did not make proper enquiry was not valid. The Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of revision. No substantial question of law arose from the order." The Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the Department against this judgment reported in (2004) 268 ITR (St) 215. In the facts of present case, the assessee had submitted the requisite information and the AO had considered the records before him and completed the assessment after considering the evidence filed and after his satisfaction on the various issues. The law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court clearly supports the case of the assessee. Respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the ....