AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 whereby the appeal preferred by the assessee came to be allowed. 3. Briefly, the case of the appellant was that the respondents filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 declaring total income of Rs.1,08,24,020/-. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 25/11/2011 completed the assessment by making addition under various heads such as vehicle expenses, deprecation of motor car etc. and adjusted the refund towards the arrears for Assessment Year 2005-06. Thereafter, on 17/12/2012, exercising the powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, for short) the Commissioner of Income Tax found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....263 of the Act. In support of the submissions, the learned Counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1968 67 ITR 84 SC in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax and another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. The Malabar Industrial Co. V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax passed on 10/02/2000. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal. It is further pointed out that at the time of scrutiny, there was physical verification of the stock which led to the original assessment. It is also pointed out that as such the question of appreciating the value of the stocks as intended by the Commissioner for the year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id not make elaborate discussion with that regard. The learned Tribunal also noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax also did not find that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was erroneous. The learned Tribunal also noted that the physical stock was taken by the Assessing Officer on 20/02/2009 and during the course of the survey proceeding the quantity of the stock from both the books as well as physical verification was available to the Assessing Officer. The learned Tribunal further found that the assessment under Section 143 was completed accepting both the books result. The learned Tribunal further noted that there was no fault with the Assessing Officer's order for not having restored to estimate and the order under Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in consequence whereof lawful Revenue dues to the State have not been realised. The learned Tribunal also noted the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 SC in the case of Malbar Industrial Co. Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax where it has been observed that every loss of Revenue as a consequence of the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The learned Tribunal as such found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue or to take action under Section 263 of the Act. 7. In the present case, as already observed herein above the Assessing Officer had raised queries to the respondents which were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the basis of last year G.P. of 10% as again the books which were accepted by the Assessing Officer earlier cannot be accepted. The learned Tribunal as such rightly found that the question of taking the impugned action in terms of Section 263 of the said Act would not at all be justified. The manner of assessing the respondents in the regular assessment has not been shown to be erroneous. The learned Tribunal has minutely examined the material on record to come to the conclusion that the impugned action is unsustainable and there is no perversity in the findings of the learned Tribunal. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant was unable to point out in what manner the assessment by Assessing Officer was erroneous. The judgment of the....