INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Revision under section 263--Erroneous and prejudicial orderLack of proper enquiry by AO--Assessee was an individual deriving income from manufacturing and export of Gems & Jewellery. Return declaring income of Rs. 2,64,140 was filed on 25-10-2007. Notice under section 143(2) was issued by ITO. Books of account produced and the case was discussed and assessed. Perusal of the noting revealed that the AO never issued any questionnaire and whatever details available on record have been suo moto filed by the assessee along with two letters dated 5-10-2009 and 17-12-2008. Filing of any details on 14-10-2008 and on 20-11-2008 is not born out from record as mentioned on order sheet. Thereafter proposal under section 263 was received from the AO through Additional CIT. According to the order under section 263, the record was examined and after examination of record, it was considered a prima facie case of order deserving revision under section 263. Accordingly, notice under section 263(1) was issued raising number of issues which according to him was not examined by the Ao while framing order under section 143(3). The issues raised by CIT in show-cause notice under section 263(1) have been mentioned at pages 1 to 5 in paras 2 to 18. Thereafter, detailed written submissions, vide letter dated 14-9-2009 explaining his case was filed by the assessee before CIT. Reply filed by assessee have been reproduced by CIT at pages 5 to 10 of his order. Thereafter, the CIT held that the replies filed by the assessee are not acceptable as the AO has not examined the issue properly, therefore, the order of AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the order of AO was set aside and matter was restored to the file of AO to pass a fresh order after examining all the details. Held: In the present case, all the details were filed before the assessing officer and they were filed before CIT also. However, no comment had been given by CIT as to how the explanation and details filed by assessee were not acceptable. Mere observing that assessing officer has not asked for the details and assessee has filed all those details suo moto, the CIT presumed that assessing officer may not have considered those details and set aside the order of assessing officer. The approach of the CIT is not acceptable. All details are on record, therefore, it should be presumed that all these details have been taken into consideration. If the CIT has given any comment that these details are wrong or on the basis of these details, deduction could not have been allowed, then only the action of the CIT could have been said that the same is correct.