Db Income Tax Appeal v. Mrs Sushma Bansal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT DB Income Tax Appeal No.136/2014Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar versusMrs Sushma Bansal, Prop. M/s Sahil Roadways Date of Judgment : 20.4.2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARIHON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Mrs Parinitoo Jain – for the appellant BY THE COURT: By this appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated26.2.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JaipurBench, Jaipur (for short 'the ITAT'). The Commissioner of Income Tax (for short 'the CIT')had initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'). The notice was issued to theassessee followed by a direction to furnish details of the expendituretowards freight expenses with supporting material. According to theCIT, despite the opportunity, required details were not furnished. Inview of the above, CIT cancelled the order of assessment finding it tobe against the interest of revenue. The benefit taken by the assesseewas not in conformity to section 194C of the Act of 1961. The orderof the CIT was challenged by the assessee by maintaining an appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT found that required details weresubmitted by the assessee vide his written statement dated15.10.2010. Taking into consideration the aforesaid and finding noadjudication in reference to the details submitted by the assessee, theorder of the CIT was set aside while confirming the order passed bythe Assessing Authority (for short 'the AO'). Learned counsel for appellant submits that as per section194C of the Act of 1961, the assessee failed to furnish details offreight expenditure to avail benefit under the Act of 1961. The CITthus invoked section 263 of the Act of 1961 and after an opportunityof hearing, when details were not submitted by the assessee, it passedthe order to disallow the benefit taken by the assessee and,accordingly, cancelled the assessment order. The ITAT failed toconsider the issue properly while setting aside the order passed by theCIT. It is in view of the fact that in absence of the details of freightexpenses to take benefit of section 194C of the Act of 1961, theassessment order was not proper thus rightly cancelled by the CIT.The ITAT should not have interfered in the order passed by the CITand, accordingly, the order passed by the ITAT deserves to bequashed. We have considered the submissions made by learnedcounsel and perused the record. A perusal of the order passed by the CIT reveals it to bein reference to section 194C of the Act of 1961 and in absence of thedetails of freight expenses required to be submitted by the assessee.The order dated 22.3.2013 was passed to cancel the assessment ordermade by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 on15.12.2010. The direction was given to the AO to make assessment inthe light of the observations made therein. The ITAT, however,found that the required details were furnished by the assessee. Para 7of the impugned order of the ITAT makes reference about it and inpara 8 of the impugned order, details of the bill number, date ofpayment, vehicle number and other details have been given. It isfound by the ITAT that the CIT has ignored the material available onrecord. The ITAT thus interfered in the order of the CIT. Theexercise of power under section 263 of the Act of 1961 was not foundproper as the CIT ignored the material made available by theassessee. The CIT passed the order without discussing the materialavailable before it. In view of the above, exercise of powers undersection 263 of the Act of 1961 was not found to be proper by theITAT. In the background aforesaid, we do not find any substantialquestion of law involved in this appeal so as to cause interference inthe order passed by the ITAT. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS), J. (MN BHANDARI), J.