INSTA EXHIBITIONS PVT. LTD. Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
LAWS(IT)-2014-5-44
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on May 15,2014

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.T.VARKEY, JM. - (1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Id Commissioner of Income Tax, IV, New Delhi dated 14.03.2013 for the Assessment Year 2008 -09.
(2.) THE grounds of appeal are as follows: - "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT erred in the assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act without establishing that underlying assessment order under revision is unsustainable as held to be must for revision u/s 263 in case of DLF Limited. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act without establishing that present case falls in category of total lack of enquiry to justify invocation of section 263 as held to be must be Delhi High Court in Sun Beam Case.
(3.) THAT on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 236 of the Act as to how the underlying order is erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue on only left of charging of interest and finally leaving the matter open which vitiates the jurisdiction: - "Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on the merits the Commissioner of Income -tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be erroneous because the order passed is not sustainable in law and the said finding must be recorded. The Commissioner of Income -tax cannot remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT erred in treating the assessee's explanation on non -charging of interest (on adopted loans originally advanced by Petersen & family to companies acquired by assessee) as non -satisfactory and wrongly directing the ld Assessing Officer to re -examine the issue." 3. Apropos assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(herein after 'the Act'). 4. Brief facts of the case is as follows. The ld. CIT while examining the assessment records of the assessee for the relevant assessment year under consideration was of the opinion that certain aspects were not considered or verified by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment of the assessee. According to the ld. CIT the Assessing Officer has not enquired or investigated about certain transactions as stated below which is reproduced for convenience: "ii. It is seen from Schedule -J of the Balance sheet that during the year under consideration the assessee has given a loan of Rs. 2,40,71,000/ - to its overseas subsidiary company on which no interest has been charged which is evident from Schedule -O of the profit and loss account. However, interest has been paid on borrowed funds which is evident from Schedule -V of the Profit and Loss account. The matter is to be examined whether the assessee has diverted its interest bearing funds towards interest free loan and advances.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.