The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0652 (Del-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 263

Following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of spouse of the assessee, namely, Mrs. Shumana Sen, the Pr. CIT had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 on the issues under consideration.

Revision under section 263 - Assumption of jurisdiction by CIT - Lack of enquiries/investigations - Contraction in statements of witnesses

A report by Addl. CIT, was forwarded to the CIT, wherein he stated that no proper enquiry was conducted by the AO in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 and the AO had not considered the application of provisions under section 68 or section 69C for making assessment of undisclosed income arising out of unexplained expenditure due to foreign visits. There were contradictions between the stand taken by M/s. NDTV Ltd. about nature of expenditure by that company on foreign trips with family, your own stand about the same where you only stated that the expenditure incurred by you was the cost to the company and the stand taken by your spouse who also travelled abroad with your other family members, that the same was personal trip and in view of the contradictions in the stand of you and your witnesses, your stand should not have been accepted by the AO without weighing the relative merit of version of the each of the witnesses examined in the case. 'Statutory directions' under section 144A issued by the Additional Commissioner, were not fully carried out, the Assessment Order as passed by AO was, therefore, erroneous and because of such errors it had caused serious prejudice to the interest of revenue. The AO submitted that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had given detailed explanation and the AO, on the basis of enquiries conducted by him and after examination of the reply given by the assessee had passed the order and, therefore, the said order cannot be held to be erroneous and, therefore, the provisions of section 263 cannot be applied. Held: Considering the facts of the case, in totality, in the light of judicial decisions present supported by a vortex of evidences, examined and analysed by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, further supported by thorough investigations/enquiries made by the AO during the assessment proceedings, there remains nothing for the Pr. CIT to assume jurisdiction under section 263 to say that the assessment order was not only erroneous but prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Pr. CIT had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 263, hence his combined order deserves to be set aside. Since the facts of the instant case were identical to the facts of the case already decided by the Tribunal in the case of the spouse of the assessee, namely, Mrs. Shumana Sen in so far as allegation No. (a), (c) and (d) of para 15 of this order, therefore, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the spouse of the assesse, namely, Mrs. Shumana Sen, the Pr. CIT had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 on the issues under consideration.

Followed:Mrs. Shumana Sen the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, vide ITA No. 3281-3284/Del/2015

REFERRED : Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (1968) 67ITR 84 (SC) : 1968 TaxPub(DT) 0135 (SC), Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1227 (SC), Swarup Vegetable Products Industrial Ltd. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 412 (All) : 1991 TaxPub(DT) 0451 (All-HC), CIT v. Eastern Medikit Ltd. (2012) 58 DTR 265 (Del) : (2012) 337 ITR 56 (Del) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 0404 (Del-HC), CIT v. Vikas Polymers, (2010) 341 ITR 537 (Del) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 2189 (Del-HC), CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) : 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0088 (Del-HC), CIT v. DLF Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 555 (Del) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 0340 (Del-HC), CIT v. Max India Ltd., (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1548 (SC), ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd., (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 1727 (Del-HC), Director of Income Tax v. Jyoti Foundation, (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2463 (Del-HC), Pr. CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia, (2017) 394 ITR 758 (Del) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1684 (Del-HC), Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Del) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4058 (Del-HC), Shri Abhimanyu Gupta v. Pr. CIT, ITA No. 771/CHD/2017 : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2513 (Chd-Trib), Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO (2016) 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mumbai Trib.) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2516 (Mum-Trib), Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Addl. ICT, (1977) 108 ITR 407 (Cal) : 1977 TaxPub(DT) 0445 (Cal-HC), B&A Plantation & Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (2007) 290 ITR 395 (Gau) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 0845 (Gau-HC), CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) : 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0088 (Del-HC), CIT v. Wear Exports Ltd., (2010) 341 ITR 166 (Del) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 2250 (Del-HC), CIT v. Vikas Polymers, (2010) 341 ITR 537 (Del) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 2189 (Del-HC), M/s. Klaxon Trading (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT, ITA No. 7265/Del/2017, CIT v. DLF Ltd. reported in (2013) 350 ITR 555 (Del) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 0340 (Del-HC). He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd., (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1548 (SC) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1227 (SC); Director of Income Tax v. Jyoti Foundation, (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2463 (Del-HC) and various other decisions of the coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, Pr. CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia, (2017) 394 ITR 758 (Del) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1684 (Del-HC) and the decision in the case Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Del) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4058 (Del-HC), Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. CWT, (1970) 77 ITR 6 (SC) : 1970 TaxPub(DT) 0352 (SC) and Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, (1977) 108 ITR 407 (Cal) : 1977 TaxPub(DT) 0445 (Cal-HC).

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT