MANISHA AGRI BIOTECH PVT. LTD. vs.. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Revision—Order erroneous or prejudicial to interest of revenue—Assessee company engaged in business of processing of seeds filed its return declaring certain income—Return was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) at income higher than that declared by assessee—Subsequently CIT held that order passed by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue since AO allowed assessee’s claim of exemption of agricultural income without making enquiry that assessee was engaged in business of trading of various kinds of hybrid seeds and therefore, the Income generated from said activity was assessable as business Income rather than agricultural Income—That cultivation expenditure was incurred in connection with tour of company staff to Nandyal and no amount was relatable to agricultural activity and nothing was incurred towards basic agricultural operations—That submission of assessee as regard deposit of employees share of contribution was contrary to remark made in the Tax Audit report—That AO had not made any enquiry with regard to discrepancy in amount of domestic sales figures as available in material impounded during survey vis-a-vis amount shown in return—That AO completed assessment without making any addition towards unexplained cash credit even though neither information letters, nor any other details showing that these three persons had really invested capital in company were filed by assessee—Held, If AO takes a possible view, then assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous—If AO had issued show cause notices with respect to an issue and assessee had replied thereto fully, Commissioner was not entitled to interfere as every decision or view that AO Officer takes is not to be reflected in Assessment Order and an item finds mention only if he does not agree with the assessees contention—If there was an inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to Commissioner to pass orders under Sec. 263 merely because he has a different opinion in the matter—Only in cases of lack of inquiry that such a course of action would be open—Anassessment order made by AO cannot be branded as erroneous by Commissioner simply because, according to him, order should have been written more elaborately—Since AO in assessment order not required to give detailed reasons—Once it is clear that there was application of mind by an enquiry, CIT, merely because he entertains a different opinion in matter, cannot invoke powers u/s 263—In instant case, AO had not only taken a possible view but in circumstances only view possible—Order passed by AO cannot be termed as erroneous or prejudicial to revenue warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction—CIT had no different or new material to take different view from one taken by AO and reasons given by him to reopen the assessment and sustain the revision were unacceptable—Order passed by CIT was set aside
Posted on: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:52:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015