Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak v. M/S Din Day

ITA-110-2024(O [&M) and connected case] Page 1 of 4 106 (2 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJACHANDIGARB AND HARYANA AT H Date of Decision: 16.12.2024 1. ITA-110-2024 (O&M) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK . . . . Appellant Vs. M/S DIN DAY . . . . Respondent **** 2. ITA-112-2024 (O&M) PRINCIPAL CTAX, ROHTAK . . . . Appellant Vs. M/S DIN DAY . . . . Respondent **** CORAM: HHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA AY VASHISTH Present: Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel (through VC)for the appellant/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) CM-15510-CII-2024 and CM-15690-CII-2024 Applications for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing ofrespective appeals are allowed, and accordingly delay is condoned. Main cases 1.The Rethe order of the Income TaxAppelladecided by a common order inITA Apvenue is in appeal assailing te Tribunal (ITAT), whereby it peals for AYs: 2011-12, 2015-16 and 2017-18. Appelladecided by a common order inITA Apvenue is in appeal assailing te Tribunal (ITAT), whereby it peals for AYs: 2011-12, 2015-16 and 2017-18. ITA-110-2024(O[&M) and connected case] Page 2 of 4 2.The Revenue has filed two appeals and has raised questions stated tobe substantial questions of law that the ITAT was not right incancelling the order of the Pr.CIT passed under section 263 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Acbe substantial questions of law that the ITAT was not right incancelling the order of the Pr.CIT passed under section 263 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Ac 3.We have carefully gone through the deITAT who has reached to the conclusion after considering the law assettled by this Court with regard to the powers to be exercised undersection into the entire record and hadreached263 of the Act. It has looked to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer (for short ‘AO’)had conducted a detailed enquiry and examined the books of accountsas well as queries had been particularly raised relating to the issue ofdeletions having been made by the concerned AO. After examining thebooks, the AO has added income in terms of the books of accounts andafter having looked into the bank accounts where the amounts found tohave been deposited, it reached to the conclusion. 4.The Supreme Court in ies Co. Ltd. vs CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83 has held as under: “6. A bare reading of this provision makes it clear thof jurisdiction by the CIat the pre-requisite to exercise ommissioner suo moto under it, ncome-tax Officer is erroneous insis that the order of the ofar as it is prejudicial tos the interests of the revenue. The atisfied of twin conditions, nameAssessing Officer sought to be revCommissioner has to be ly, (i) the order of the ised is erroneous; and (thii) it is prejudicial to the interests em is absent - if the order of therroneous but is not prejudicial to tof the revenue. If one of e Income-tax Officer is he revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to tcannot be had to Section 263(1) of t 7. There can be no doubt thbe invoked to correct each and evearror committed by the Assessing n order is erroneous that the sectiOfficer; it is only when on will be attracted. An inlacorrect assumption of facts or an w will satisfy the requiremenincorrect application of t of the order being earroneous. In the same category fapplying the principles of naturll orders passed without al justice or without application of mind.” erroneous but is prejudicial to tcannot be had to Section 263(1) of t 7. There can be no doubt thbe invoked to correct each and evearror committed by the Assessing n order is erroneous that the sectiOfficer; it is only when on will be attracted. An inlacorrect assumption of facts or an w will satisfy the requiremenincorrect application of t of the order being earroneous. In the same category fapplying the principles of naturll orders passed without al justice or without application of mind.” 5.We are of firm view that the power contained under section 263 of theAct can be exercised only with respect to cases where it is found thatthe AO has not conducted the enquiry, and resultantly, loss has beencaused to the department. Sine qua nonis that the assessment order hasto be erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue,and for the said purpose, a finding has to be arrived that no enquirywas done. If there are two views available for the AO to take a decisionafter cosaid that the decision taken bythe AOnducting enquiry, it cannot be would be erroneous, and the CIT could not have turned asidethe ordthat a different decision shouldhave be 6.We areno undue haste by the AO inconducments have been looked into bythe ITAconducments have been looked into bythe ITA7.Thus, wT and a detailed judgment has be find that the power of reviseen passed on facts of the case.ion as exercised by the Pr.CITunder section 263 of the Act, being different from the powers to beunder section 263 of the Act, being different from the powers to be Page 4 of 4 exercisin law. The order passed by theITAT, ted in appeal, is not sustainable herefore, does not warrant any interference. No substantialquestion of law is required to be examined by us in the present appeals.Accord 8.Appeal 9. All penp (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE December 16, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No2. Whether reportable? Yes/No