Universal Arts Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1304 OF 2007 Universal Arts Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-4 ..Appellant ..Respondent Mr.Vipul B. Joshi i/b. Sameer Dalal for the Appellant. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. 1.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Inthe above Appeal, the following substantial questionsof law are sought to be raised;1. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, and in law, therevision order passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax under Section 263 of the Income TaxAct,1961 was bad, illegal and void inasmuchas:(i) the ground for initiating the revisionproceedings was erroneous contrary to thefacts on the records; and(ii) the revision order was passed on a grounddifferent from the ground on which therevision proceedings was initiated?2. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, and in law, theorder of revision passed under Section 263 ofthe Act was bad and illegal inasmuch as theassessment order was not "erroneous" withinthe meaning of the section in as:(i) the Assessing Officer had done dueverification regarding the claim with respectto share issue expenses; and (ii) no material was brought on record even bythe Commissioner of Income Tax to suggest thatthe claim with respect to the share issueexpenses was not allowable under the Act? 2.We have perused the original Assessment order especially the middle portion of paragraph No.6, which reads ad under: 6.................................In the lightof the above principle if we examine therecord carefully then it reveal that A.O. hasaccepted the statement of income on this issueas it is without making any enquiry. Thealleged affidavit and the extract of ordersheet placed on record do not indicate as tohow the investigation was carried out by theA.O. We have directed the assessee to producethe assessment order passed in pursuance to263 order as well as details of expenses.This exercise was carried out only with a viewto understand the facts because neither fromthe order of the ld. Commissioner nor fromthe original assessment order the factsrelating to the issue in dispute arediscernible. After going through these factswe are of the view that ld. Commissioner hasrightly taken up the cognizance under Section263 because A.O. has not applied his mind andsimply accepted the claim of the assessee.3.In the light of the above, we do not find anysubstantial question of law involved in the above. The Appeal is devoid of merits. Hence, the same stands dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)