Itta/496/2012 Of Comissioner Of Income Tax v. P. Ramakrishna Prasad (Huf)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.496 OF 2012 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-IIAayakar Bhavan, KT Road, Tirupathi ..... Appellant AND P.Rakakrishna Prasad (HUF)Proprietor of Bharat Oil Sales depot,Swamy Building, Main Bazar, Hindupur .....Respondent The Court made the following : JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be admitted against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated06.08.2010 in relation to the assessment year 2000-2001,on the following suggested questions of law: 1.In the facts and circumstances of the case, theCommissioner of Income Tax in exercise of powerunder Sec. 263 of Income Tax Act has set aside thesubject assessment orders, which was erroneousand prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue,whether the order of the Hon’ble Tribunal cancelingthe said orders of Section 263 of Income Tax Act,without considering the relevant material facts onrecord is not erroneous in law and liable to be setaside?Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of powerunder Sec. 263 of Income Tax Act has set aside thesubject assessment orders, which was erroneousand prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue,whether the order of the Hon’ble Tribunal cancelingthe said orders of Section 263 of Income Tax Act,without considering the relevant material facts onrecord is not erroneous in law and liable to be setaside? 2.In the facts and circumstances of the case, as theAssessing Officer did not conduct properinquiry/verification of related books pertaining tosuppressed particulars of sale of palm oil, by therespondent assesse and the said assessment orderwhich is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest ofRevenue was set aside under Sec. 263 of IncomeTax Act by remitting the mater to the AssessingOfficer, whether the order of the Hon’ble Tribunalcanceling the said orders of Section 263 of IncomeTax Act, without considering the facts and merits ofthe case, is not erroneous in law and liable to be setaside.Assessing Officer did not conduct properinquiry/verification of related books pertaining tosuppressed particulars of sale of palm oil, by therespondent assesse and the said assessment orderwhich is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest ofRevenue was set aside under Sec. 263 of IncomeTax Act by remitting the mater to the AssessingOfficer, whether the order of the Hon’ble Tribunalcanceling the said orders of Section 263 of IncomeTax Act, without considering the facts and merits ofthe case, is not erroneous in law and liable to be setaside. We have heard Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learnedcounsel for the appellant and we have gone through theimpugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. Itappears that the learned Tribunal on fact found that theCommissioner of Income Tax has invoked the jurisdictionunder Sec. 263 of Income Tax Act. In a case where twoviews are possible, one such view can be adopted by theAssessing Officer. It is settled position of law that nointerference under Sec.263 of Income Tax Act can be madeif the Assessing Officer adopts one legally permissible viewand the Commissioner cannot substitute its own view inexercise of the jurisdiction under Sec.263 of the Income TaxAct. There is no substance in the appeal. Consequently we dismiss the appeal. No order as tocosts ______________________ Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. July 17, 2013MAS __________G.Rohini, J.