TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as ignored the order passed by CIT Appeal Ajmer which was in the same case same year and same facts and appeal was decided in favour of assessee." 2. In this case, original assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer on 04/10/2010 U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The ld Assessing Officer observed that during the course of assessment proceedings the AR of the assessee has furnished a list of students occupying Basant Vinayak residency. The assessee has shown that Rs. 5,000/- p.m. is charged from each girl for boarding and lodging. The hostel came into functioning w.e.f. July, 2007 with 30 rooms fully furnished. As per this chart total receipts shown for 9 months comes to Rs. 14,25,000/-. Out of which she has shown Rs. 7,00,000/- as annual rent against room rent and balance Rs. 7,25,000/- on messing expenses. The ld A.O. had deputed his inspector to enquire about mess records. As per his report no mess register is maintained as per enquiry it was gathered that the assessee has inflated mess expenses but without records. Hence, he had reason to believe that due to inflated mess expenses she could avoid tax. As per assessee in the hostel 27 to 29 girl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ld CIT reproduced the assessee's reply on page No. 2 of the order. After considering the assessee's reply, he held that examinations of the assessment records revealed that the A.O. completed the assessment in a routine manner. It was not only the lack of verification but also mistaken view of law which has made the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.). The Hon'ble High Court held that the Income-tax officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return, which apparently is in order but calls for further inquiry. It is his duty to ascertain truth of facts stated in the return which the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry. The word "erroneous" in Section 263 includes the failure to make such an enquiry. He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar and Anr. Vs. CIT 220 ITR 657. On inquiry which is to be made by the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment, if the Assessing Officer does not make any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essential facts related to various claims made in the return as mentioned, have not been verified/analysed by the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order dated 4/10/2010. He further observed as under:- "The jurisdiction U/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 has been conferred to the Commissioner of Income Tax to revise the order of Assessing Officer which he finds to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, only because there is no appeal filed by the Department against the order of Assessing Officer. So the primary objectives of the provisions of this section are to vest some corrective powers in the hands of the Commissioner of Income Tax to modify or cancel any order by Assessing Officer if it is found to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. It is clear from the facts apparent from records that the Assessing Officer had passed an order U/s 143(3) without due and proper enquiries which he is expected to make as an investigator as he cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry. I, therefore, in the facts and circumstances as discussed above and respectfully follow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hostel at Rs. 12.65 lacs, which was assessed by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 14.25 lacs and also reduced the expenses on the ground of inflation from Rs. 5,65,000/- to Rs. 4,75,000/-. Thereafter he considered 50% receipts under the head income of house property at Rs. 2,43,103/- in place of Rs. 1,71,436/- shown by the assessee. The ld Assessing Officer has applied his mind, made detail inquiry against the assessee and thereafter he accepted the assessee's income under head income from house property. The ld CIT, Kota had given direction to the Assessing Officer for making proper inquiry and verification of books of account and other record/documents, what level, the ld CIT wanted to inquire the matter is a different opinion on same facts and circumstances of the case. The perception of the inquiry may be differ from persons to person, therefore, the ld CIT is not empowered U/s 263 to make further inquiry. There cannot be similarity in the concept of proper inquiry in view of the two persons accordingly he argued that ld CIT had different perceptions of proper inquiry to Assessing Officer. The successor Assessing Officer had proposed 263 on the same facts and circumstances, it also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e got merged with the CIT(A) order, which was passed on 11/1/2013. Therefore, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Jain Construction Company (supra) is squarely application in the case of the assessee. The Coordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Nirmala Devi Chordia Vs. CIT (supra) has held as under:- "2.11 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. We find from the record that the assessee had already filed the return of income despite that she has been wrongly accused of not filing the same; this subjected the assessee to rigor of avoidable 148 proceedings. The record and submissions filed during the course of assessment proceedings did not in any manner indicate that proper enquiries and verification were not conducted. The order of the AO though short yet crisp and clear in arriving at proper findings reflecting reasonable discharge of assessment which cannot be held as erroneous. In our considered view, the case laws cited by the ld. AR in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto Ltd. (Delh), Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (supra) support assessee's contentions. We are of view tha....