Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (03 Aug 2020)

Where Assessing Officer has accepted a particular contention/issue without any enquiry or evidence, the order is erroneous

MANU/IP/0122/2020

Direct Taxation

Present appeal preferred by the Assessee emanates from the order of the learned principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, for the assessment year 2014-15 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The crux of the grievance of the Assessee is against the revisionary jurisdiction assumed by the learned principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act.

The Learned principal Commissioner of Income Tax, on analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case vis-à-vis assessment order held that, relevant facts in present case were not at all examined by the Assessing Officer. Since no reasons were provided for his decision in the assessment order and therefore, the assessment order was set aside being held to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

The legal principle common is that, whenever the Quasi-Judicial Authority is making any decision on the given facts, there must be nexus between the reasons given by the Quasi-Judicial Authority with regard to the documents on record for which finally he arrives at that decision. The decision must reflect the reasoning of the Officer. In this case, in the assessment order, the entire exercise is missing. Merely extraction of submissions cannot justify that the Assessing Officer has applied his mind.

The Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT and Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT has been held that, where Assessing Officer has accepted a particular contention/issue without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

The Assessing Officer while accepting the documents has not conducted any specific enquiry as to the facts of the case. There is no iota of evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer justifying that, there was mistake committed by the assessee vis-à-vis his filing of original as well as revised return of income.

In present case, the Assessing Officer has only done the work of extraction of submissions of the Learned AR and nothing else and therefore, in fact the Assessing Officer has not formed any view. When no view has been taken, no enquiry has been conducted, when no reasons on facts has been placed on record, the order of assessment is bound to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The order passed under Section 263 of the Act by the Learned principal Commissioner of Income Tax is upheld. Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

Tags : REVISIONARY JURISDICTION ERRONEOUS LEGALITY