TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Commissioner-VII, Mumbai. The Commissioner invoked Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the IT Act") and held that the order of the Assessing Officer brought before him and dated 15th December, 2009 is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. Mr. Mohanty would submit that the Tribunal has grossly erred in interfering with such an order. The satisfaction of the Commissioner was within the four corners of law and not exceeding the same. The Commissioner was of the clear view that the Assessing Officer has erred in passing the order of assessment, and particularly, there is no application of mind. He has wrongly accepted the working of capital gains and that is apparent from the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), the assessment order ought to be termed as erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and that satisfaction must be spelt out. If that satisfaction is not spelt out clearly and precisely, but the Commissioner proceeds to exercise the power mechanically, then, his order based on such incorrect understanding of the power is vitiated. 9. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had before him the factual position. The factual position is that the respondent assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of garments, shoes etc. It sold its immovable proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....depreciation was not claimed on the entire building. It has been claimed only on 1/6th portion of the building and the income from remaining 5/6th portion was offered to tax under the head 'income from house property'. That has been thoroughly examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and that is evident from the fact that he has made an addition of Rs. 4,31,298/under this head 'income from house property'. 13. The claim for deduction of Rs. 31.05 crores was the second aspect which was examined by the Commissioner. Insofar as that is concerned, the Tribunal found that the claim was of deduction as there was an end to the litigation. It is only when the litigation ended that the building c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n any other manner is also incorrect because of the order passed by the Tribunal's Mumbai Bench. In such circumstances, this is not a case where, on a working of the capital gain by the Assessing Officer, he has committed any error. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner. 14. We do not think that we should allow Mr. Mohanty to canvass any submissions on the understanding of the Commissioner, and particularly as to what would amount to an encumbrance on the property. The Commissioner held a view which was plainly unsupportable by the record. So long as there was a dispute and there was legal intervention which brought about an end, but only partially, to such dispute and the parti....