D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. M/S V.d.motors Pvt. Ltd

D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.144/2006.[COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER VS. M/S V.D.Motors PVT. LTD.] DATED : 04.01.2007 HON'BLE MR. RAJESH BALIA, J.HON'BLE MR. CHATRA RAM JAT, J. Mr.K.K.Bissa for appellant. ***** Heard learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. TheTribunal has found that the income of the assessee assessed for theAssessment Year 2000-2001 by the Commissioner of Income Tax inexercise of his power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961considered that in certain matters referred to in the order certainspecific inquiries were not held or concluded, that the order passed bythe Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest ofrevenue and set aside the order of the assessment. He directed theAssessing Officer to make a fresh assessment after holding detailedinquiry. On appeal, the Tribunal found that in all matters pointed out by the CIT, the Assessing Officer did hold detailed inquiries, the CIT had not found in what manner any of the findingsrecorded by the Assessing Officer is erroneous. Merely on basis ofassumption that because of some specific inquiry has not been madethe conclusion that order is erroneous cannot be sustained. We are in agreement with the learned Tribunalthat the order of the CIT does not reveal how and in what manner theorder of Assessing Officer was erroneous except making generalobservation about certain inquiries ought to have been made, withouteven arriving at any conclusion that because such inquiry has not beenmade any error has crept into the order? He has not himself cared tomake any inquiry in the areas referred to in the order at least to findprima facie that inquiry in that manner, if made, would have led todifferent result. Since, objecting opinion that assessment was erroneous is necessary pre-condition for exercise of power underSection 263, was not in existence, the order of revision has rightlybeen set aside by the Tribunal. We may observe that the order of the Tribunal an inadvertent passing remark has been made that the order is noterroneous but may be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue was uncalled for. There is nothing to suggest that the order of theAssessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in anymanner. Such finding cannot be based on any presumption orassumption on surmises. The appeal is dismissed in liminme. , J. , J. mamta