Iapl/319/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr v. M/S Sbec Sugar Ltd

Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 319 of 2011 Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.Respondent :- M/S Sbec Sugar Ltd.Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush AgarwalCounsel for Respondent :- Rohit Agarwal Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J. Heard Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned counsel forthe department and Sri Rohit Agarwal, learnedcounsel for the assessee. This is an appeal filed by the department undersection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for theassessment year 2005-06 against the order of theTribunal dated 25.3.2010. The questions of lawsought to be answered are hereunder; "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunalis justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the Assessment Orderwas neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue withinthe meaning of the provisions of Section 263 of the Act on the ground thatall the details were filed before the A.O.? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunalis justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the assessee would nothave to pay any tax even if the amount computed by the CIT had beendisallowed by the A.O. by ignoring the fact that the assessed unabsorbedlosses have to be allowed in subsequent years.?" The Tribunal has examined the matter at length and has come to the conclusion that insofar as theexpenditure, which was allowed is concerned, thedetails have been filed before the AssessingOfficer and the case of the assessee had beenaccepted without any doubt. The Tribunal recordsthat if the dis-allowances have been made therewould have been no gain to the revenue andtherefore, if at all any omission had been made bythe Assessing Officer, it would not lead toinevitable conclusion that the order wasprejudicial to the interest of the revenue, which is one of the conditions to be necessarily satisfiedbefore invoking the revisionary jurisdiction underSection 263 of the Income Tax Act. Insofar as the issue with regard to the paymentsmade to the Director is concerned, the same werealso accepted as this too did not lead to anyattention to the revenue or any loss to the revenueand no part of the order has been found to beerroneous. In view of the findings of fact recorded by theTribunal, the questions of law are to be answeredin favour of the assessee and against thedepartment. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 16.1.2018Arvind