2016 (5) TMI 963

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Kumar, ld. counsel for the assessee, is identical to the ground raised by contending that assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28/01/2014, considering the arguments of the assessee, therefore, invoking the revisional jurisdiction is not justified. It was contended that assessment was framed after due application of mind by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It was pleaded that necessary details were filed before the Ld. Assessing Officer for which our attention was invited to various pages of the paper book but fairly agreed that the Ld. Assessing Officer has not made discussion on some of the issues for which the assessee cannot be penali....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....incorrect application of law would satisfy the requirement of order being erroneous u/s. 263. The phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue" u/s. 263, has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order by the Assessing Officer . Every loss of Revenue as a consequence of assessment order cannot be termed as "prejudicial to the interest of Revenue", meaning thereby "prejudice" must be prejudice to the Revenue administration. At the same time, if another view is possible revision is not permissible. Our view is fortified by the decision from Himachal Pradesh Financial Corpn. (186 Taxmann 105)(HP), Bismillah Trading Co. (248 ITR 292)(Ker.) and CIT vs. Green World Corpn. (314 ITR 81)(SC). For invoking revisional jurisdi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any Ltd. vs IO (2001) 248 ITR 292, 308 (Kerala), xii. Paul Mathews & Sons vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101, 113 (Kerala), xiii. CIT vs Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490, 500 (Mad.), xiv. Rayon Silk Mills vs CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj.) 2.3. However, if the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases is analyzed with respect to the facts of the present appeal, it is noted that in the assessment order, merely, it has been mentioned that the details/explanation called for have been examined and placed on record and further that the receipt on account of sale of wind power, sale of flats from projects and stock of unsold projects. Next issue discussed in the assessment order is with respect to disallowance of depreciation on motor car....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the ld. Commissioner. Our view is fortified by the decision in Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(Del.), Thalibai F Jain vs ITO 101 ITR 1 (Karn.) and CIT vs HPFC 186 Taxman 105 (HP), CIT vs Pushpa Devi 164 ITR 639 (Patna). We are aware that before the Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263, he should be satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M. M.Khambatbala 198 ITR 144 (Guj.) even went to the extent that revisional powers can be exercised even if the issue is debatable. Totality of facts, clearly indicates that the Ld. Commissioner justifiably invoke....