1992 (9) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act by holding that there is nothing in the aforesaid order to show that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ?" The res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oever, made the assessment. The Commissioner of Income-tax issued notice under section 263 of the Income-tax Act and, after an opportunity was given to the assessee, she came to the conclusion that the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and she set aside the order and directed a fresh order to be passed. One of the reasons for invok....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nue and the Commissioner of Income-tax had wrongly exercised her jurisdiction. We, however, find that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has nowhere dealt with the question raised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, namely, that there was no independent verification of confirmations allegedly issued by various shareholders. It is, no doubt, true that it is stated in the order of the Income-tax Appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the amount in question represented undisclosed income of the assessee. The essential difference between the two cases is that, in the present case, the assessee itself did disclose undisclosed income of Rs. 3,43,000 as being income from other sources. It further represented that this amount was offered for being taxed as representing cases of some of the subscribers to the share capital. We, there....