AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1737
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ramed for being answered by us: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Assessment Order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the Commissioner of Income Tax to have jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the regular assessment proceedings pending on the date of search and search would abate? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263, bringing the capital gains arising out of sale of building used for business purpose without considering the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cost of construction of the new building and the depreciation was allowed on the cost of the new building, without reducing the sale consideration of the old building. Further, the Assessing Officer brought to tax the profit of sale of old building under the head, "Capital Gains", which was worked out to Rs. 12,88,355/-. 6. As a sequel to and in continuation of search carried out under Section 133A of the Act, on 14.10.2009, proceedings under Section 153C of the Act were eventually initiated, which led to an assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Act and order passed on 12.12.2011. In the course of completion of the new assessment, while considering the case of depreciation, the Assessing Officer held that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d be held that the assessment carried out was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, inasmuch as the issue as to whether the building was used for business purposes, was clearly discernible from the fact that the appellant had purchased the land from the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Development Corporation. This part was duly appreciated during assessment proceedings drawn under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Act and it was held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation allowance and the property was held to be one used for business purposes. 11. Further submission is that the considerations which prevailed with the Commissioner do not reflect that any opinion was formed by the Commissioner that it wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, and the various decisions cited at the Bar. 14. It is relevant to state, and an admitted position, that the appellant partnership firm claims to be engaged in the manufacture and sale of kitchen utensils. Moreover, it is also borne out from the records of the case that while the assessment was in the process of completion, a search was carried out under Section 132 of the Act in the business premises of another assessee and simultaneously, search was also carried out under Section 133A of the Act in the business premises of the appellant. 15. The appellant had also filed return of income for AY 2007-08 in response to the notice issued under Section 153C of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner, this was a case of "inadequate inquiry". Once there is an inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order under Section 263 of the Act merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. It cannot, therefore, be said to be a case of erroneous order and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 17. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (cited supra) examined the aforesaid legal position as regards the scope and ambit of power under Section 263 of the Act. It was held to be a settled principle that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each and every item of deduction etc. One has t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner, could have come to such a conclusion, the very initiation of proceedings by him will be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in the matters or orders which are already concluded. Such action will be against the well-accepted policy of law that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce, repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. 19. Therefore, an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If the Income Tax Officer, ....