D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr

D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.117/2007 (Shri Shree Pal Jain Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.) DATE OF ORDER : 07.08.2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. MAJMUDARHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr. Yogesh Sharma for the appellant.Mr. K.K.Bissa for the respondents. BY THE COURT : (PER MAJMUDAR,J.) By way of filing this appeal, the assessee has challengedthe order dated 7.9.2005 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in I.T.A. No.313/JU/2005 forAssessment Year 2001-2002. The assessee has furnished his return declaring income ofRs. 1,77,310/- and assesment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The C.I.T. found that since nodetails were submitted by the assessee during the assessmentproceedings, the matter was required to be taken in revision.The C.I.T. further found that the assessee had shown sundryfarmers and creditors at Rs.44,34,874/- but no details weresubmitted in this connection. The C.I.T. accordingly came tothe conclusion that the assessee has failed to furnish necessarydetails and assessment was completed without looking into the important aspects, which were required to be examined. TheC.I.T. accordingly set aside the assessment order and directedthe Assessing Officer to pass fresh order after providing properopportunity of hearing to the assessee. The said order waschallenged before the Tribunal and it was argued before theTribunal that the C.I.T. should not have taken the matter intorevision as order of the Assessing Officer cannot be said to beagainst the interest of revenue. The Tribunal, however, came tothe conclusion that the matter is covered by the another decisionof the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Renu Gupta Vs. CIT passed inITA No.309/JU/2005 for the Assessment Year 2001-02.Following the said decision, the Tribunal found that the C.I.T. hasrightly assumed jurisdiction while invoking the provisions ofSection 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is aforesaid orderof the Tribunal which is impugned in this appeal. It is fairlypointed out to this Court that so far as decision in the case ofSmt. Renu Gupta (supra) is concerned, the Division Bench of thisCourt to which one of us (Majmudar,J.) was a party, has givenjudgment in D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.16/2006 (Smt. RenuGupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax). In the said judgment,it is made clear that it will be open to the assessee to leadevidence before the Assessing Officer in view of the remandorder passed by the Commissioner. It has been held that theC.I.T. was justified in taking the matter into revision against the order of Assessing Officer. It is fairly pointed out by learnedcounsel for the appellant that the matter is covered by theaforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. In view of the same, even on merits, we do find that theTribunal has committed any error while upholding the order ofthe C.I.T. Accordingly, the Income Tax Appeal stands dismissed. Noorder as to costs. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. (P.B.MAJMUDAR), J. ms rathore