Case Law Details
Rajdhani Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
In this case Section 263 order was passed only on the basis of the non-appearance of assessee and non submission of the document during the proceeding. Section 263 is moved up by two limbs, one erroneous order and second is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ld. PCIT had not taken proper cognizance to discuss the issue and applicability of section 263 in relation to the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. A non speaking order was passed. The ld. CIT-DR also accepted the defect of the impugned order. The order, u/s 263 of the Act should be in details & be enriched with facts and should be well reasoned in relation to application of section 263 of the Act. We are directing the ld. PCIT to pass a fresh order considering to the provisions of section 263 and identify the proper lacunae in the order of the ld. Assessing Officer
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AMRITSAR
The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar [in brevity the PCIT], bearing order No. F. No.Pr.CIT-1/Jal./263/2018-19/3253 dated 10.01.2019 u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in brevity the Act], in respect of Assessment Year 2014-15.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Revenue initiated the proceedings u/s 263 against the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Hoshiapur passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 17.06.2016. The show cause notices were issued to the assessee in different dates but none was appeared. The final opportunity was given on 17.12.2018 but there was no explanation or documentary evidence was not filed in support of the claim from the end of the assessee. The observations of the ld. PCIT is annexed here under:
“2.2. On 17.12.2018, Sh. M.R. Bhagat, Advocate, attended the proceedings and filed written request for adjournment intimating therein that he has been appointed as authorized representative as per section 288 of the Act and also filed POA from the assessee. Vide order sheet entry dated 17.12.2018, the counsel of the assessee was intimated that the adjournment is being sought on flimsy grounds when the details being asked for are part of his books of accounts. He was again asked to produce to produce the copy of cash book for the month of June and complete diesel account. It was also made clear that in case of non production of the above details by 20.12.2018, it would be assumed that the books have not been maintained properly and the assessee is seeking time to manipulate the accounts. The case was adjourned for 20.12.2018. However, on 20.12.2018, nobody appeared nor any application for adjournment was received.
3. I have carefully considered the submissions filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee was asked to produce the copy of cash book for the month of June and complete diesel account along with bills/vouchers for verification of the claims made by it in its replies but the assessee failed to do so despite being given enough opportunities. Instead, the assessee sought adjournments on flimsy grounds again and again. He even failed to take advantage of the final opportunity given on 17.12.2018. Therefore, it is apparent that the assessee has no explanation or documentary evidence in support of his claims. The details called for are part of its books of accounts and should be readily available with him. Despite repeated adjournments, the assessee didn’t produce any details.” The explanation offered by the assessee is, therefore, not acceptable. The case is, therefore, set aside to the file of the A. O. for being assessed afresh.
4. In view of the above facts and discussions, I am satisfied that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, on 16.01.2017 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Therefore, the said order passed on 16.01.2017 is set aside to this extent to the file of the assessing officer to pass fresh order after making necessary enquiries/investigations in the light of the discussions made above. The Assessing Officer should examine all the above aspects thoroughly, the assessee should be given proper opportunity of being heard.”
3. We observed the order of the Revenue authority passed u/s 263. The order was passed only on the basis of the non-appearance of assessee and non submission of the document during the proceeding. Section 263 is moved up by two limbs, one erroneous order and second is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ld. PCIT had not taken proper cognizance to discuss the issue and applicability of section 263 in relation to the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. A non speaking order was passed. The ld. CIT-DR also accepted the defect of the impugned order. The order, u/s 263 of the Act should be in details & be enriched with facts and should be well reasoned in relation to application of section 263 of the Act. We are directing the ld. PCIT to pass a fresh order considering to the provisions of section 263 and identify the proper lacunae in the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. Needless to add that adequate opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 05.05.2022
