Case Law Details

Case Name : CIT Vs M/s. Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd. (Allahabad High Court)
Appeal Number : Income Tax Appeal No. 1 of 2015
Date of Judgement/Order : 23/02/2015
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (4459) Allahabad High Court (267)
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of  CIT V/s M/S Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd in Income Tax Appeal No. 1 of 2015 has held that a mere non discussion or non mention in assessment order would not justify section 263 to be applied.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return for assessment year 2008-09 on 28.9.2008 declaring income of Rs.8,14,647/-,The case was selected for scrutiny. The Assesing Authority made certain queries, which were replied by assessee and after inquiry, Assessing Officer, being satisfied in respect to the queries replied by assessee,accepted his declared income and passed assessment order on 14.12.2010. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut, however, issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act on the ground that Assessing Officer had not made inquiry on certain aspects.

Relying on two judgments of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Vikash Polymers 194 Taxman 547 and CIT Vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. 28 273, wherein it has been held that once inquiry was made, a mere non discussion or non mention thereof in assessment order cannot lead to assumption that Assessing Officer did not apply his mind or that he has not made inquiry on the subject and this would not justify interference by Commissioner by issuing notice under Section 263 of the Act. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court upheld the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT by observing as under:-

“13. We are not persuaded by placing any other authority or by any substantial argument so as to take a different view to what has been taken in the decisions, as noticed above. We also find that learned counsel for the Department though sought to re-argue before this Court that no inquiry has been made by Assessing Officer with respect to the queries set up in para 3 (a) to (f) of the notice issued under Section 263 of the Act, but when his attention was drawn to the order passed by Tribunal recording otherwise findings, he could not place anything to show that aforesaid findings recorded by Tribunal are perverse or contrary to record. “

Read Other Articles / Analysis by CA Prarthana Jalan

Download Judgment/Order

Author Bio

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (28535)
Type : Judiciary (12836)

Leave a Reply

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