ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL,J. - (1.) This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 14.11.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "H", New Delhi. This appeal was admitted on 16.2.2017 on the following questions of law: (1) Whether the ITAT passed a perverse order in setting aside the order U/s 263 on grounds that A.O. had already conducted inquiry on issues on which order U/s 263 was passed when no such embargo has been put in the language of the Section, the intention of the legislature was never such so as to render the revenue remediless against erroneous orders of the A.O. nor make the revenue suffer a continuous wrong. (2) Whether the ITAT erred in law in interpreting the provisions of Section 263 which says "Commissioner may call for and examine the records of the proceedings if he considers any order passed therein, by the A.O. is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue" hence the view of the ITAT in the present case that A.O. had already conducted inquiry is unsustainable. (3) Whether the ITAT erred in law in curbing the power of the CIT granted by the legislature to examine and correct the orders of the A.O. especially when this is the only remedy available with the department to correct the wrong of the A.O. (4) Whether the ITAT erred in law in deleting the order U/s 263 on the issue of development expenses when it was clear that only a small portion of such development expenses was actually related to land development receipts. (5) Whether the ITAT erred in law in deleting the order U/s 263 on the issue of agricultural income when it was clear that assessee had only purchased a land on which crops were shown and sale proceeds of such crops does not constitute agriculture income. (6) Whether the ITAT erred in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that there was a difference between the Gross Receipts as per 26AS and Gross Receipts declared by the assessee when the assessee did not furnish any reconciliation statement to explain the difference.
(2.) The case relates to the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee which is a Company, filed return of income on 27.9.2008 declaring income at Rs.14,71,900/-. The said return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the Company was selected for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The assessee produced the books of account and replied the various queries raised by the Assessing Officer. As the assessee had shown development expenses of Rs.7,16,62,142/- in the profit and loss account, the A.O. found Rs.1,20,000/- as excessive and disallowed the same, and added to the income of the assessee. The Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the assessing officer on 18.11.2010.
(3.) The assessee challenged the assessment order passed under Section143(3) of the Act by filing Appeal No.192/10-11 before the CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Act. On 5.6.2013, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that addition made by A.O. was without any basis, as the word "appear" to be excessive was stated in the order of the A.O. and such addition made in a cavalier and casual manner cannot be sustained.;