Case Law Details
Agasthiya Granite (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)
Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the assessing officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by way of illustration, pointed out that when the income tax officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the income tax officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner of Income Tax does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the income tax officer is unsustainable in law. The fact that the two views existed is evident from the order of reference passed by the Hon’ble Full Bench quoted above. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax could not have invoked the power under Section 263 of the Act, as the income tax officer had adopted one of the two views possible.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
Heard Mr.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/Revenue.
2. This TaxCase (Appeal) has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
