2024 (10) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate, for the respondent ORDER SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1. The brief facts for adjudication of this appeal are that the Assessing Officer passed an order dated 24.12.2007 under Section 145 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') in absence of the assessee rejecting his books of accounts. The assessee ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Company Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala State 2000 (243) ITR 83 holding that the order passed by the AO could not be said to be erroneous in the eyes of law. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submits that the Joint Commissioner while passing order under Section 144A of the Act ought not to have directed the AO to pass order in terms laid down by him and the AO ought ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Assessing Officer failed to take notice of the reply of the assessee and had hurriedly passed the order in the absence of the assessee. The said order was challenged under Section 144A of the Act before the Joint Commissioner, who remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the reply. The record was produced before the Joint Commissioner who also noticed that the AO in his order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion that the same is erroneous to the extent that it is prejudice to the interest of the revenue. The twin conditions necessary for interference under Section 263 of the Act have been laid down in M/s Malabar Industrial Company Limited (supra) as under:- (i) the order of Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue....