TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uiry made by him, reply received from assessee thereon or material supplied by Department and discussion thereon and demonstrate from the order that he has made inquiry in the matter and has been satisfied with reply of assessee or mere inquiry is sufficient to pass an order of assessment and to exclude application of Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in such a case." 3. Both the learned counsels have addressed this Court on this question. 4. The admitted facts are that assessee filed his return for assessment year 2008-09 on 28.9.2008 declaring income of Rs. 8,14,647/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a difference of Rs. 10,28,256/- but A.O. has not verified or reconciled the difference from the assessee nor did he make the addition of Rs. 10,28,256/-." 6. The assessee submitted reply stating that on all these aspects, inquiry was made by Assessing Authority but Commissioner did not agree with the same and observed that Assessing Officer has accepted version of assessee without making any inquiry or verification, has passed assessment order, which is substantially prejudicial to Revenue. Accordingly, he passed order dated 21.3.2013 partly setting aside assessment and directing Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order of assessment after considering all evidences and affording opportunity to the assessee. 7. The order of Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... highlight that the same was also replied to the Assessing Officer. Similarly, he took us to copy of form 2 filed with ROC for the allotment of shares was placed. It was submitted that no share application money was raised during the year and it was only the share applicants of earlier year who were allotted shares during the year. As regards point (e), the Ld. A.R. took us to pages 175-211 wherein copy of letter dated 05.10.2010 submitting details of freight and cartage were placed. Regarding difference in creditors as observed by Ld. CIT at point (f), Ld. A.R. submitted that the difference was already explained to the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 20.09.2010 placed at paper book pages 40-41 and in this respect, we were taken to pape....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ein any otherwise view has been taken. On the contrary, learned counsel for assessee has placed before us a decision of Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.296 of 2013 (The Commissioner of Income Tax-8 Vs. M/s Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd.) decided on 3.2.2015, wherein also Bombay High Court, following its earlier decision in Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) has taken a similar view and said as under : "...if a query is raised during assessment proceedings and responded to by the Assessee, the mere fact that it is not dealt with in the Assessment Order would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it." 13. We are not persuaded by placing any other authority or ....