TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1792
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ched hotel. He filed return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 on 31.10.2006 declaring a total income of Rs. 21,56,870/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act', for short) was served on the assessee on 23.10.2007. In the survey conducted under Section 133A of the Act at the business premises of the assessee on 13.03.2006 by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Kannur, incriminating documents and evidences were noticed, which clearly established that the Gross Profit as a percentage of sales turnover of the assessee's business was higher than the return filed over the years. The daily statement and sale vouchers were found to be destroyed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al and vide the common order dated 19.08.2011, it upheld the assessment and also justified the penalty, but reduced the penalty from 300% of the tax on the admitted income of Rs. 14,00,000/- to 200%. This order is impugned. 4. The following questions of law arise for consideration, as re-framed by us:- (1) Was the Tribunal justified in finding that the assessment made by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and that there was sufficient reason for the Commissioner to invoke the provisions of Section 263 of the Act? (2) Was the Tribunal justified in upholding the order of penalty imposed by the Commissioner under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and limiting the order of penalty to only 200% despite having formed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal could not have substituted its own reasoning which were required to be recorded by the AO and if the AO did not record the reason, the assessee could not have found fault with it. The learned counsel for the assessee relies on the decision in (2008) 306 ITR 52 (SC) [Toyota Motor Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax] in support of the contention. There can be no doubt that so long as the view taken by the AO is a possible view, the same ought not to be interfered with by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act merely on the ground that there is another possible view of the matter. Permitting exercise of revisional power in a situation where two views are possible, would really amount to conferring some kind of an appellate ....