TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 724
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Assessing Officer (for short, "the AO") wherein the income was computed and assessed at Rs. 6,81,500, vide order dated September 30, 2008 after analyzing various claims made by the respondent-assessee. It is apparent that an addition of about Rs. 4,50,000 was made by the Assessing Officer. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, after analyzing the grounds raised by the respondent-assessee, partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee, vide order dated March 19, 2010. It appears that the said order became final and neither the respondent-assessee nor the appellant-Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Administration), Kota, having powers of revision, issued a show-cause notice under section 263 of the Income- tax Act on October 29, 2009, on the premise that the order passed by the Assessing Officer on September 30, 2008, was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant-Revenue. 5. The respondent-assessee appeared before the Commissioner of Income- tax (Administration) and filed detailed su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to assess the return under section 143(3) of the Act and since the assessment order was passed by the lower authority, i.e., the Income-tax Officer who had no jurisdiction, therefore, the Commissioner initiated proceedings under section 263 validly and was justified in quashing the said assessment. She contended that the Assessing Officer, assessing originally, overlooked various claims and in summary manner considered the issue and did not touch upon the vital issues which had far reaching consequences. Had the Assessing Officer, assessing originally, been vigilant, then he could have looked into the issues more appropriately. She contended that had the things been looked into by the higher authority in correct perspective, possibly so many lacunae, might not have been left by the Assessing Officer. She contended that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal grossly erred in quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income- tax and submitted that substantial questions of law emerge out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and need consideration by this court. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jurisdictional error was there and therefore, in our view, the Commissioner, in the present order under section 263 was not justified in re-initiating the proceedings under section 263 mainly on this premise about jurisdiction. There was no fault of the respondent-assessee. The respondent-assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer who issued valid notice and the Assessing Officer had the authority to issue notice under section 143(2) as aforesaid and complied with the requirements raised by him. The respondent-assessee may not be aware of such requirements and for this the respondent-assessee cannot be subjected to fresh innings at the hands of another Assessing Officer. 12. It would be fruitful to quote section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which provides as under : "263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue.-(1) The Commis sioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the inter ests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment year 2007-08 was not submitted rather the financial year had not ended by then and, in our view, the Income-tax Officer assumed valid jurisdiction. The return for the assessment year 2007-08 was submitted on August 31, 2007 and, in our view, merely because assessment order was passed after August 31, 2007, the order passed by the Income-tax Officer on September 30, 2008, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction rather, the assessment order, passed on September 30, 2008, can be said to be with jurisdiction and validly passed. 15. We are also of the view that there is no provision either under section 154 or under section 263(1) to inform the Commissioner of Income-tax to issue show-cause notice under section 263 by the lower authorities as the Commissioner only has the jurisdiction to issue show-cause notice under section 263 if he himself is satisfied after examining the records of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer which falls under his jurisdiction and the Commissioner of Income-tax also gets power of revision if the twin conditions are satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er section 263. 18. As discussed hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction when the notice under section 143(2) was issued and once the Income-tax Officer had valid jurisdiction at the time of issuance of notice, then the Assessing Officer ought to have informed the assessee if there was some internal circular. The Commissioner later on was of the view that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction and, in our view, it cannot be said to be proper as the assessee appeared on valid notice and after considering all the submissions or representations, the Income-tax Officer passed an order. It is not a case where the Income-tax Officer passed order in a cryptic or summary manner accepting the returned income and we notice that the assessment order is running into 12 pages and after elaborate discussion on most of the issues, the income was computed/assessed at Rs. 6,81,500. As pointed out here above, twin conditions have to be satisfied and the order cannot be termed to be erroneous only because the Commissioner of Income-tax does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. We have already referred to the fact that one Commissioner of Income-tax also issued notice under s....