TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 97
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "D" Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1277/KOL/2014 for the assessment year 2009-10. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Kolkata erred in quashing the order under Section 263 of the Act on the basis that the order of the assessing officer sought to be revised in the impugned order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the reason of any law of enquiry that the assessing officer ought to have made in the given facts and circumstances of the case? b) Whether on the facts and in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was completed under Section 143[3] of the Act by order dated 28.12.2011 on total income of Rs. 36,03,42,760/-. The CIT took up the matter for consideration and on scrutiny pointed out that the assessee had credited a sum of Rs. 10,35,13,136/- as sundry income in the profit and loss account and for the purpose of computation of partner's salary allowable under Section 40[b] of the Act. The said income being income from other sources should be excluded from the book profit. This, according to the CIT, was a mistake. Secondly, the CIT noted that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 3,34,56,529/- in profit and loss account on PWC Global Service charges and the same is not allo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment was made and the CIT has not stated as to and in what manner the Assessing Officer has committed an error so as to form the opinion that the order of assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It is contended that merely by stating that no inquiry had been conducted by the Assessing Officer would not be sufficient to hold that the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Various factual submissions were also made before the Tribunal and materials were placed to show that at least in four earlier assessment years the sum of the claims made by the assessee was allowed and there is no circumstances warranting the Assessing Officer to take a different view and, hence, the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... professional negligence, the Tribunal held that it has direct nexus to the business of the assessee. In this regard, the Tribunal has noted the submissions of the assessee that similar expenditure had been allowed during the assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09. Therefore, the Tribunal was satisfied that necessary inquiries were made and the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be treated to be erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. That apart, the Tribunal also held that merely by stating that there is no inquiry by the Assessing Officer would not be sufficient for the CIT to assume jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act but a finding has to be rendered as to how and in what manner the inquiry was required to be d....