- (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY filing this appeal, the appellant assessee has challenged the order dt. 24th March, 2005 passed by the CIT, Bikaner by which the CIT, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act has found that the order passed by the AO is against the interest of the Revenue The CIT, accordingly, set aside the order and remanded the matter back for fresh enquiry by giving opportunity to the appellant assessee to lead evidence in connection with the facts in issue The order of the CIT was taken further by way of appeal before the Tribunal The Tribunal also found that the CIT has exercised the revisional jurisdiction in proper manner and accordingly the said order was confirmed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur The orders passed by the CIT and the Tribunal are impugned in this appeal While admitting this appeal, this Court has formulated the following question: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT having issued show -cause notice under Section 263, giving the details of certain items in respect of which enquiry was not conducted by the AO, but on receipt of reply from the respondents and finding enquiry in those matters were conducted without holding that the conclusions arrived at by the AO on the basis of enquiry conducted by the AO is erroneous, was the CIT justified in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 by merely opining that proper enquiry has not been conducted? The learned advocate Mr. Ojha appearing for the appellant submitted that there was no justification on the part of the CIT to exercise the revisional jurisdiction as no reasons are given by the CIT in his order as to why it is necessary to exercise such jurisdiction nor the CIT has held that the conclusions arrived at by the AO are erroneous He submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the order passed by the AO is against the interest of Revenue He, therefore, submitted that the CIT could not have exercised the revisional jurisdiction against the just decision of the AO Learned Counsel submitted that the CIT as well as the Tribunal both have erred and the matter was not required to be sent back for further scrutiny.
(3.) WE have gone through the record In our view, the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal of the appellant has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter It is required to be noted that the cogent reasons have been given by the CIT in his order as to why the order of the AO is required to be interfered with While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the CIT has found that the matter was required to be sent back for further scrutiny The CIT also found that the assessee was required to furnish the details of expenses debited to income and expenditure account under the various heads In paras 5 and 5 1 of the order, the CIT has observed as under:;