TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1638
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respect of assessment year, 2016-17, regarding which impugned notice stood issued. The scrutiny assessment was made, upon the Assessing Officer (AO) having issued questionnaire and verified documents produced by petitioner. The scrutiny assessment resulted in finding that income of petitioner chargeable to tax was nil. Subsequent thereto, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Exemption made order dated 30th March, 2021, setting aside the assessment as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Petitioner preferred appeal before the Tribunal and was successful. The order made under section 263 was set aside. Revenue has preferred appeal to this Court (ITA no.71 of 2022). The appeal has not yet been admitted. However, co-ordinate Bench had passe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the answers given by petitioner he points out that each and every one of them are partial. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was full disclosure. Hence, the donations escaped notice and therefore reassessment is to be done. As such, the transactions themselves are tangible material for reopening the assessment. That is why the Commissioner found the assessment was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The reassessment is necessary. 5. He submits further, petitioner had filed objection to impugned notice. The objection was dealt with on reasons communicated to petitioner by letter dated 28th January, 2022. Therein was reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Limited, report....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r dated 8th April, 2022 passed by the Tribunal in setting aside the order of the Commissioner made under section 263. We reproduce below passages from paragraphs 14 and 15 in said order. "14. On the first issue, after considering the rival submissions of both the sides and keeping in view the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee in paper book Vol.I and II, we clearly note that case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and the AO has issued notice u/s. 142 (1) of the Act on 4.7.2018 alongwith questionnaire, wherein, the assessee was asked to furnish individual ledger account of income and expenditure and to furnish details of specific grant-in-aid alongwith documentary evidence. The said notice was replied b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ionary order on the issue." (emphasis supplied) 7. The Tribunal found the facts to be that there was disclosure. It went on to say that the Commissioner, without conducting any inquiry, set aside the assessment order, to direct the AO to make further inquiry and redo the assessment. In this context the Tribunal had relied on DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation, reported in (2013) 357 ITR 388, whereby a Division Bench in the High Court of Delhi relied on the Court's earlier view. Paragraph 5 is reproduced below. "5. In the present case, inquiries were certainly conducted by the Assessing Officer. It is not a case of no inquiry. The order under Section 263 itself records that the Director felt that the inquiries were not sufficient and fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceeding to reopen, the revenue through the AO is actually seeking to review the assessment, to rectify earlier error of omission, if any. Error apparent on face of the record is a good ground for review, as stands recognized by law. However, as aforesaid, the Supreme Court had said that there is conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. For there to be a reassessment, the revenue must disclose tangible material. It is not necessary for it to establish at the reopening or at the initial stage that there will be a finding of escapement in the reassessment. As was said in Kelivinator (supra) so also the Supreme Court said in Rajesh Jhaveri (supra) that the only question is, was there relevant material, on which a ....