Commissioner Of Income Tax, Alwar v. M/S. Allora Service Station, Kumher Gate, Alwar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT DB INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.84/2015. Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar.Vs.M/s. Allora Service Station, Kumher Gate, Alwar. Date of order : 03.11.2016. PRESENTHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI Ms. Parinitoo Jain for the appellant. BY THE COURT: 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee and quashed the order of CIT under Section263 of the Act. 2.Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the followingsubstantial questions of law: “(i) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified inquashing the order of the CIT passed u/s 263specifically when the Assessing Officer did notcarry out proper inquiry and the assessment orderwas erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of therevenue? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified inquashing the order of the CIT specifically whenafter examining the record the CIT found that theassessment order was erroneous and prejudicialto the interest of the revenue and so direction forfresh assessment was given in accordance withthe powers conferred u/s 263?” 3.It has been contended by the learned counsel for theappellant that the Tribunal has committed error in disregard to the provisions of law under Section 194 C of the Act and has wronglyobserved as under: “2.10. We have heard the rival contentions andperused the materials available on record. We findmerit in the argument of the ld. Counsel for theassessee that M/s. BPCL awarded contract to theassessee subject to arrangement of dedicatedtanker for supply of petroleum products. This wasarranged by the assessee by way of a tankerowned by associate concern. BPCL paid thetransportation to assessee which is credited by it inthe a/c of AKHK only and TDS is claimed by it asper certificate. From the assessment records, itemerges that the AO asked the queries which havebeen replied by the assessee. The AO in his orderhas clearly mentioned that relevant records wereproduced and verified on test check basis and theassessment was framed after discussions, theinformation/ letter supplied by the assessee standson record. This leads to an inference that AO hasconsidered all the relevant aspects about theassessment, and there is no case of lack of enquiryin this behalf during assessment. The level ofenquiry in assessment proceedings is always adebatable proposition depending on the authorityconcerned. It has been held that conceptualdifference on the manner of inquiry cannot makethe assessment order erroneous or prejudicial tothe interest of revenue. Even on merits, there is noloss to the Revenue inasmuch as it is not disputedthat tanker receipts surplus has been shown byAKHK and is asssessed at same rate. All thetransactions are duly disclosed and it cannot beheld that AOs order is erroneous or prejudicial tothe interest of revenue.” 4. The Tribunal has thus given a finding that all the transactions are duly disclosed and it cannot be held that AOs order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5.In that view of the matter, the observation made by theTribunal is just and proper and no substantial question of law arises forconsideration. We confirm the same. 6.The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. (MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI), J. (K.S. JHAVERI), J. bblm