Case Law Details
Smt. K. Krishnaveni Vs I.T.O. (ITAT Hyderabad)
In the present case before us, the assessee has offered the capital gains tax in the next year and there has not been any prejudice to the revenue. Further, the assessee has explained to the query raised during the scrutiny proceedings before the Assessing Officer was answered to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Hence, the Order is not erroneous.
Further, as held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Spectra Shares & Scrips Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (AP) [2013] 354 ITR 59 it has been held as follows :
“(f) Whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question has to be seen; that if there was an inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 merely because he has a different opinion in the matter; that it is only in cases of lack of inquiry that such a course of action would be open; that an assessment order made by the Income Tax Officer cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately; there must be some prima facie material on record to show that the tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation, a lesser tax than what was just, has been imposed.”
In view of our above findings, we quash the Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act and the assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
