TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1039
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect a mistake which, according to the appellant, is apparent from the initial order. The Tribunal refused to take cognizance even of that request made in writing. It made a further order rejecting that application. 3. We have heard Mr. Jain, appearing for the appellant/assessee and Mr. Pinto, appearing for the respondent/Revenue. 4. The appellant claims that it had right to occupy residential units in a holiday resort at Goa. The appellant-company in order to further its business prospects promoted a holiday scheme. The scheme envisaged payment of initial lump-sum amount by the purchaser towards purchase of a Unit Week and in lieu of which the purchaser was entitled to occupy a residential unit in the resort for a specified week every....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 proposing to revise the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as, according to him, he had failed to make the necessary inquiries while allowing the appellant's claim for depreciation and also while allowing its claim pertaining to diminution in the value of shares. 7. This was for the Assessment Year 2004-05 and the notice dated 6.3.2009 was replied. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order on 26.3.2009 invoking Section 263, aggrieved by which the matter was carried to the Tribunal. 8. The Tribunal, according to Mr. Jain appearing for the assessee, was duty bound to decide whether the power under Section 263 could at all have been exercised given the facts and circu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l to the interest of the Revenue. It was the invocation of that provision and the exercise of power thereunder which was faulted, according to Mr. Jain and throughout. In such circumstances, the Tribunal's order is vitiated by total non-application of mind and can be safely termed as perverse as well. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Pinto would submit that the Tribunal's conclusion in the peculiar facts and circumstances cannot be termed as perverse and all the more when the Tribunal, in para 5 of the initial order, has clarified by directing the Assessing Officer to verify whether the property time sharing unit actually falls under the category of intangible assets. Hence, the issue is at large and there is no prejudice to the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estions of law: "(A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act of the assessment order was called for? (B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the revision order passed by the Respondent under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was bad, illegal and without jurisdiction?" 13. For the reasons that we have assigned and being dissatisfied with the manner of disposal of the appeal, we do not think that the proceedings be kept pending before this Court as that would prejudice the interest of both the assessee as well as the Revenue. In the circumstances, we quash and set aside the initial order of the Tribunal dated....