TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1028
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amed. Our attention was invited to the various issues discussed/deliberated upon in the assessment order. The crux of the argument is that the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, therefore, the revision jurisdiction was wrongly invoked. 2.1. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri Devasis Chandra, ld. CIT-DR, defended the order of the Ld. Commissioner by contending that the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Our attention was invited to para-2 of the impugned order. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Horizon Investment Co. Ltd. vs CIT (ITA No.1593/Mum/2013), order dated 27/06/2014. 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing of feeding bottles and accessories. The assessee showed total turnover of Rs. 2,40,72,048/- and offered gross profit of Rs. 99,20,394/- at the rate of 41.21% of the total turnover. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) at the rate of 25% of the total profit of Rs. 65,39,181/- after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kkar vs ACIT 279 ITR (AT)143(Ahd.), CIT vs Honda Siel power Products Ltd. 194 taxman 175 (Del.), CIT vs Internal travel House Ltd. 194 taxman 324 (Del.) and CIT vs Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos.1391/2010, 1394/2010 & 1396/2010) wherein, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that section 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake committed by the Assessing Officer, if it is not 'prejudicial to the interest of the revenue' and every loss of revenue as a consequence of assessment order cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. So far as, non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer is concerned under the facts narrated in this order, reliance can be placed upon the ratio laid down in following cases:- i. CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) ii. CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674)(Del.) iii. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (294 ITR 310) (Del.) iv. Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT (263 ITR 437) (P&H) v. CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (323 ITR 206) (Bom.) vi. RCI Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 40 DTR Mum (Trb.) 186 vii. Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT(2014) (100 DTR 1)(Mum.)(Trb.) and viii. CIT vs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts before us. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion the Hon'ble High Court duly considered the decision in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del.) (para-6 & 7). We are expected to ascertain whether the Assessing Officer had investigated/examined the issue and applied his mind towards the whole record made available by the assessee during assessment proceedings. Uncontrovertedly, necessary details/reply to the questionnaire were filed/produced by the assessee and the same were examined by the Assessing Officer, therefore, it is not a case of lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer. Identical ratio was laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT (2014) 100 DTR (Mum.) (Trb.) 1, order dated 10/1/2014. In another case from Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Limited (2010) 323 ITR 206, on identical fact wherein assessment order was passed after considering all details called for and furnished by the assessee. The ld. Commissioner invoked revisional jurisdiction on the ground that enquiry was not conducted, the Hon'ble High Court held that the ld. Commissioner was not ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contain 'grievous error' which is subversive of the administration of Revenue. Further, 'exact error' must be disclosed by the Commissioner as was held in CIT vs. G.K. Kabra (211 ITR 336)(AP). Totality of facts, clearly indicates that assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was framed by the Assessing Officer after obtaining necessary details from the assessee and further the same were examined by him. Therefore, even if, the same has not been spelt elaborately in the assessment order it cannot be said that there is a 'lack of enquiry' or 'prejudice' has been caused to the Revenue, as we have discussed various case laws in earlier part of this order which are identical to the facts before us. Our view is further fortified by the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal (wherein one of us i.e. JM is signatory to the order ) in the case of Mehta Trading Company (ITA No.2838/Mum/2013), order dated 31/10/2014, which is also on identical facts/issue. 2.7. It is also noted that the Ld. Commissioner invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 with respect to commission of Rs. 2,12,136/- at the rate of Rs. 25 per piece to Rajendra Jain and Kiran Jain by observing that no such commission was paid i....