Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 1388/JP/2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 15/09/2021
Related Assessment Year : 2008-09
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)

Since the A.O. is a quasi-judicial authority, who has to collect the evidences, material and then to adjudicate the matter after due and complete application of mind. The A.O. expected to record his own satisfaction before reaching to any conclusion. In our view, the A.O. cannot borrow his satisfaction by merely relying upon material or the result of the other reports of other investigation agency unless he himself has examined the issue in hand by due and full application of his own mind. From the facts we noticed that the A.O. solely relied upon the findings which were recorded in the order of the Commissioner Central Excise, Jaipur No.2643 dated 24.07.2015. The AO in the present case was solely guided by the pointwise observation and finding contained in the order of the CCE, Jaipur and he even reproduced the relevant extracts from such order starting from Pg 4 to 10 of the impugned assessment order. Although the A.O. categorically admitted that the assessee had filed a detailed reply on dated 18.03.2016, however, further held that such factual explanation dealing with each and every case was not relevant inasmuch as the CCE has already examined the issue and recorded his findings. This fact clearly shows that the AO has summarily rejected the contention of the assessee without examining the issue in hand, huge additions were made. Merely relied upon the findings of the CCE, however, it is important to mention that the CCE had passed the order under the provision of Central Excise Act, 1944 in that peculiar context of the case. However, such findings cannot be lifted and relied upon by the A.O. in a different factual context of Income Tax Laws.

It is pertinent to mention here that the impugned reasons do not speak of/ refers to any transaction/ income emanating from annexures B to G. However, the allegation of such suppressed sale was withdrawn/quashed by the Assessing Officer being the CCE, Jaipur vide adjudication order dated 30.06.2015

Therefore, the very basis and the supporting point, the reasons to believe does not exist anymore, therefore, the proceedings initiated U/s 147/148 deserves to be quashed at this stage and we quash the proceedings initiated U/s 147/148 of the Act.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR 

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031