Learned Tribunal Was Of The View That The Two Conditions Laid Down Inthe Judgment Of The Supreme Court In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd v. Accordingly, We Dismiss The Appeal. No Order As To Costs

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NO.178 OF 2013 DATED:3.7.2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-IIHyderabad … AppellantAndK. Manikyam1-90-2/A, MadhapurHyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. NO.178 OF 2013 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following suggestedquestions of law. (A)“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order passed bythe Commissioner of Income Tax U/s.263 of the I.T.Act?Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order passed bythe Commissioner of Income Tax U/s.263 of the I.T.Act? (B)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal is justified in not holding that the perfunctoryenquiry conducted by the assessing authority resulted in anillegal assessment and the same could be remedied by directinga fresh assessment in exercise of the power vested in theCommissioner of Income Tax U/s.263 of the I.T.Act?Appellate Tribunal is justified in not holding that the perfunctoryenquiry conducted by the assessing authority resulted in anillegal assessment and the same could be remedied by directinga fresh assessment in exercise of the power vested in theCommissioner of Income Tax U/s.263 of the I.T.Act? (C)Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in recordingconclusions ignoring the apparent and relevant material onrecord?”conclusions ignoring the apparent and relevant material onrecord?” This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment andorder of the learned Tribunal, dt.20.2.2009, in relation to the blockperiod of 1989-90 to 1999-2000. The Commissioner of Income Tax, in exercise of power underSection 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has revised the assessmentorder, as he was of the view that the assessment order is erroneousand prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The main focus ofalleged error is on allowing deduction under Section 54F of the Act, bythe Assessing Officer. The learned Tribunal, on fact, found that theAssessing Officer has made himself enquiry and examined all theaspects and thereafter he allowed the deduction. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was of the view that the two conditions laid down inthe judgment of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T.[[1]],namely, the order of the Assessing Officer, sought to berevised, is erroneous and it is prejudicial to the interests of theRevenue, are not satisfied. The learned Tribunal has correctly heldthat mere recording that the impugned assessment order is erroneous,will not do. Why it is erroneous has to be mentioned in the show causenotice before the assumption of jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not findany reason to interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal. Thelearned Tribunal has correctly interfered with the order challengedbefore it. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________________ G. ROHINI, J 3.7.2013 bnr [1](2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)