TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1027
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... holding that assessment order U/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.03.2014 is erroneous & prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Central)-1, Kolkata has erred in setting aside order U/s 143(3) dated 28.03.2014 by relying on the decision of Rampyari Devi Saraogi - Vs - CIT, 67 ITR 84(SC) 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Central)-1, Kolkata has erred in passing order U/s 263 dated 15.01.2015 by relying upon irrelevant & extraneous circumstances 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Central)-1, Kolkata has erred in not appreciating the facts properly that the AO conducted detailed enquiry by issuing notices U/s 133(6) and only after getting proper response to such notices the AO framed assessment U/s 143(3). 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Central)-1, Kolkata has erred in passing order U/s 263 mechanically without proper application of mind." 2. Issue raised in all the grounds of appeal by assessee is that Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act erred in holding the assessment order p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore Assessing Officer on and from Nov. 2013 to Mar. 2014. All relevant details regarding purchase, repair and maintenance and other assets and sale promotion and copy of Form 20B for showing capital was furnished at the time of framing assessment. The expenses incurred on purchase of materials were duly cross verified by service of notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act by AO. Therefore, assessment was completed after detailed inquiry and examination of all relevant materials. 2) The reason expressed in the show cause notice that the assessee might have indulged in giving accommodation entries cannot be a valid ground for initiation of proceedings under section 263 because of suspicion and surmises. 3) Regarding sale of property assessee has given an affidavit that no such property was sold during the relevant year. However, ld. CIT disregarded the claim of assessee by observing as under:- i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) the ld. CIT can pass order under section 263 of the Act even if there is a debatable issue. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that where AO has accepted entry in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied on the order of AO. On the contrary the ld. DR strongly relied on the order of the ld. CIT. 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the materials available on records. From the aforesaid discussion we find that the ld. CIT treated the order of the AO erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It is because that the AO has not verified the expenses in details. Besides there were some information from New Delhi income tax office for checking the genuineness of the assessee activities as he might have indulged in providing accommodating entries. And this fact was not verified by the concern income tax officer. There was some sale of the properties which were not disclosed in the income tax return. Therefore the ld. CIT held the order erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Now to arrive at the correct conclusion of the case, we deem it necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 263 of the Act. (1) The [ Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re we disagree with the view of the ld. CIT. 4.2 The 2nd and 3rd reason was that the assessee has claimed sales promotion expenses and repair & maintenance expenses without proper enquiry and examination of the records. However from the order of the AO we find that the assessee has produced books of accounts and other details which were test checked by the AO and thereafter the assessment order was framed. The CIT also alleged that the books of accounts were produced on the day i.e. 28th March 2014 and same day the order of assessment was passed. We again disagree with the view of CIT that the AO had short time for the verification of the books. In this connection we opined that it was the duty of the AO to carry out the assessment of the assessee in the manner as he deems fit in the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly the AO has done his job by framing the assessment on the assessee. However the CIT makes his opinion that the order passed by the AO was made in haste but failed to bring anything on record from the proceedings for holding the order of the AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this connection we rely on the order of Hon'ble High Court of All....