2011 (9) TMI 999

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sment Year 2006- 07 vide his order dated 24.10.2008. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the revision order of CIT-XVII, Kolkata. For this, assessee has raised following six grounds: "1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT has misconstrued the provisions of Section 263 of the Act in holding the order to be erroneous when there was neither misapplication of law or fact in the assessment order passed by A.O. 2. That the Ld. CIT had mechanically applied the provisions of Section 263 without referring to the assessment order when A.O had meticulously referred to the various documents evidences and written submissions relied upon by him and had passed the order after due applic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arge payment made and the same were test checked. Assessing Officer recorded this fact in his assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 24.10.2008 (which is subject matter of revision u/s. 263 of the Act) for Assessment Year 2006-07. We find that the CIT-XVII, Kolkata issued show cause notice requiring the assessee to furnish explanation on following points: "(a) The reasons for fall in net profit rate to 3.77%. (b) The Assessee has paid labour charges of Rs. 66,42,355/- to a sub-contractor without making TDS u/s.194C. The payments should have been disallowed per provision u/s.40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as Tax had not been deducted at source. (c) Letters u/s. 133(6) were issue for verification of p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pect of the issues mentioned in clauses (a) to (h) of paragraph 1 of this order." Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before us. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. In going through the facts of this case, as narrated above, we find that the CIT for revising the assessment framed by AO has not recorded, anywhere, that the order of AO is erroneous so as to prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Keeping in mind this fact and circumstances, we are of the view that section 263 of the Act postulates that the Commissioner can revise an order passed by the Assessing Officer only if (i) it is erroneous, and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If the order sought to be....