TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, is it correct on the part of the Appellate Tribunal to hold that it is unnecessary to place all the details in the assessment records by the Assessing Officer? iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, is it correct on the part of the Appellate Tribunal to hold that the consideration of the Commissioner of Income Tax as to an order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue must be based on the materials on the record of proceedings called for by him? " 2. The assessee is an educational institution and had filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10, on 08.02.2011 admitting 'nil' income. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a regular assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (in short, 'the Act') was made on 14.12.2011 accepting the exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. 3. Admittedly, before the assessment order was made under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had issued a questionnaire under Section 142(1) with 34 questions on various issues. The assessee replied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted to re-assess the income tax return filed for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer passed a fresh assessment order dated 30.03.2015 giving effect to the order under Section 263 of the Act. The appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short 'the CIT(A)'] was rendered infructuous by virtue of the order impugned in this appeal. 7. Ms.Pushpa states that the order of CIT (A) was challenged before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which confirmed the order of CIT(A) and a separate appeal being Tax Case Appeal No.456 of 2018 was filed in this Court and the same is pending. Ms.Pushpa, in fairness, agreed that if this Court is against the Revenue in this present appeal, the other appeal would be rendered infructuous. 8. Section 263 of the Act reads as under: "263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. Explanation 3.-For the purposes of this section, "Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thereafter, says that exemption under section 11 has been allowed by the Assessing Officer without making verification regarding the entitlement of the trust to the exemption with reference to the above issue. Why so, it is not discussed? Why does he feel that the Assessing Officer has not made a verification, there is no discussion. The whole thing appears to be a mere conjecture and a fishing enquiry by appellant. 10. It is true that the assessment order dated 14.12.2011 does not discuss the queries raised or the answers given thereto. But the fact is, the Assessing Officer had issued a questionnaire dated 26.07.2011 under Section 142 (1) of the Act raising 34 questions on various issues and assessee had given an explanation and also submitted materials. In our view, once a notice is issued and assessee is called upon to show cause or give explanation or submit documents and assessee has complied, not giving a finding or discussing the same would mean that the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. 11. In Aroni Commercials Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-2(1) and Another, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, while dealing....