2007 (10) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....questions of law have been raised in the memo of appeal for consideration by this court: "1. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in law and on facts in setting aside the order under section 263 dated February 21, 2005, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun, holding that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ? 2. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate tribunal was legally correct in law and on facts in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in resorting to the provisions of section 263 of the Act in cancelling the assessment ?" 3. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uld have enabled the Assessing Officer to compute its income as per the provisions of the Act. The said vouchers, etc., were also produced before the Assessing Officer and the same were also examined by the Assessing Officer. It is not in dispute that along with the return, the assessee filed the audit report in the prescribed form signed by Price Waterhouse Coopers, Perth, copy of which is placed at pages 58-69 of the paper book. M/s. Devash K. Shah and Co., C. A., of Mumbai, had in their audit report mentioned that the books of account were verified and certified by M/s. Price Waterhouse Coopers, Perth, and as they had not themselves examined the books of account, they refrained from expressing their own opinion on the particulars prescri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se of Saipem U. K. Ltd. NRC v. CIT. Dehradun I. T. A. No. 853/Del/05 for the same assessment year 2001-02 copy of which is placed at pages 135-141 of the paper book. At page 139 (internal page 5), wherein it was held as under: 'Moreover, for non-filing of tax audit report, penalty under section 271B can be imposed but the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous.' 14. We find that no material could be brought on record by the Revenue to show that the Assessing Officer had passed in the assessment order dated August 22, 2003, in the case of the assessee without proper application of his mind. We find from the order sheet entries of the Assessing Officer, photocopy of which is placed at pages 25-29 with typed copy at pages 30-32 ....