Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV Vs. HOTZ INDUSTRIES LTD.
July, 29th 2014
$~10
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         ITA 294/2014

                                      Date of decision: 23rd July, 2014

      COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV             ..... Appellant
              Through     Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing
              Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing
              Counsel.

                          versus

      HOTZ INDUSTRIES LTD.                             ..... Respondent
               Through

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

      Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue in this appeal

against the order of the tribunal dated 25th October, 2013, quashing the

order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short)

passed by the Commissioner, we are not inclined to interfere. We

need not examine the issue whether the Commissioner was precluded

from passing an order under Section 263 because disallowance under

Section 14A made in the order under Section 143(3) was subject

matter of first appeal as we have to hold that the order passed by the

Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act dated 31st October, 2011,

did not meet the two jurisdictional pre-conditions i.e., the assessment
order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.






2.     The Assessing Officer had made disallowance under Section

14A of Rs.45,07,413/-.      The Commissioner felt that the correct

disallowance should have been Rs.1,25,39,364/-. This was disputed

by the assessee pointing out that the figures taken by the

Commissioner were incorrect.       Without pronouncing whether the

figures given by the assessee were incorrect, the Commissioner

recorded that this required verification from the records and, therefore,

the assessment order to this extent should be set aside for fresh

examination.    This is impermissible and cannot be allowed under

Section 263 as the Commissioner must reach the finding that the

assessment order restricting disallowance under Section 14A to

Rs.45,07,413/- was erroneous and incorrect. The Commissioner on

the other hand was uncertain and undecided, whether he was correct or

not.

3.     The second issue related to loans/assets written off to the tune

of Rs.6,25,245/-. The assessee was a non-banking financial company

dealing in investments etc. The assessee in response to the notice had

submitted that the deduction as claimed was examined by the

Assessing Officer and he was satisfied with the claim made and the

same was admissible under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act.

Commissioner in the order under Section 263 did not go into the said
question on merits, but observed that the "Assessing Officer it

appears" had not caused any inquiries or investigation, but accepted

the contention of the assessee. Commissioner observed, "therefore,

meaningful inquiry should be conducted". This does not meet the

requirement that the decision of the Assessing Officer should be

erroneous. Once inquiries were conducted and a decision was reached

by the Assessing Officer, it cannot be said that it was a case of no

inquiry. In such cases, the Commissioner must reach a finding that the

finding of the Assessing Officer was erroneous, not because no

inquiries were conducted, but because the final finding was wrong and

untenable.






4.    The third issue relates to sale of agricultural land. The assessee

had claimed exemption under Section 54B of the Act, which the

assessee was not entitled to as a company. During the course of

assessment proceedings, the assessee had accepted that Section 54B

was not applicable, but pleaded that they had sold the agricultural

land, which was exempt under Section 2(14) clause (iii) read with

Section 45(1) of the Act.      The assessee had submitted that the

Assessing Officer had examined whether the land sold was

agricultural land and details were filed.        The finding of the

Commissioner was not that the Assessing Officer had not made any

inquiries, but that the Assessing Officer had not properly applied his
mind and deliberated upon the issue. This again does not meet the

statutory requirement that the order passed by the Assessing Officer

was erroneous. Once inquiries were held and the Assessing Officer

formed a belief, the finding/opinion formed can be set aside only when

it is erroneous and not because no inquires or inadequate inquires were

conducted.

5.    The appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed.




                                      SANJIV KHANNA, J.



                                      V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
      JULY 23, 2014
      NA/VKR

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting