AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2016-17, the assessee filed return of income declaring Nil income. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued a notice dated 03.12.2018 in which the AO pointed out that there was a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) conducted in the premises of the assessee on 03.11.2016. The AO has also mentioned in the said notice that the documents impounded at the time of survey show that the assessee which claims exemption under sections 11 to 13 of the Act had made certain payments out of trust money which were in violation of provisions of sections 11 to 13 of the Act. The AO has listed out the impounded documents and also has made reference to the fact that the impounded documents pertain to Assessment Years 2012....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....moting the education and has made it a commercial business by paying commission to agents by diverting the Trust funds for personal benefits of the Trustees. Still the sum of Rs. 10,34,900/- was not brought to tax in the assessment order on substantive basis which was offered as income in the hands of Thomas P. John and the same was assessed protectively in his hands which is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The CIT was of the view that assessment order dated 31.12.2018 for A.Y.2016-17 was passed without making proper verification which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 6. In reply of the aforesaid show cause notice, the assessee submitted that the NR vouchers that were impounded at the time of survey do ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....while passing the Assessment Order for A.Y.2017-18 by making the additions/disallowance on the basis of them itself makes the assessment order for A.Y.2016-17 erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 6. As discussed in the assessment order for A.Y.2017-18, the nature of this impounded materials clearly evidence the violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the A.O. failed to discuss these impounded materials in the assessment order for A.Y.2016-17, hence, it is held that the assessment order passed for A.Y.2016-17 is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and the same has been passed without making inquiries into the violations of the Stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t make any reference to these three issues in the assessment order cannot make the order erroneous when the issues were indeed looked into. The entire details were filed and the order itself indicates that it can be inferred that the Assessing Officer not only made enquiries, but satisfied himself with the assessee's replies furnished from time to time in support of its stand. When the Tribunal concludes in this manner and finally in paragraph 16 holds that the Assessing Officer took a perfectly corrector a possible view, then, the order passed by him cannot be termed as erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue The Commissioner of Income Tax was not, therefore, justified in invoking section 263 of the Act." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., we find that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., in ITA No.588/2006 judgment dated 04.01.2012 has taken a contrary view. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court had to deal with the following question of law: "1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the commissioner exercising Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by holding that the Assessing Officer should rework the credit in respect of Canadian and Thailand Tax claimed under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) without specifying the error in the original order sought to be revised and how it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in failing to apprecia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accept a submission of this nature would be to give a free hand to the assessing authority, just to pass orders without reasoning and to spell out reasons only in a situation where the finding is to be against the assessee or any claim put forth by the assessee is denied. 28. We are of the clear opinion that there cannot be any dichotomy of this nature, as every conclusion and finding by the assessing authority should be supported by reasons, however brief it may be, and in a situation where it is only a question of computation in accordance with relevant articles of a double taxation avoidance agreements and that should be clearly indicated in the order of the assessing authority, whether or not the assessee had given particulars or de....