Smt Shamshunnisa Begum, Bidar V. Income tax Officer, Ward-1, Bidar

ITA 1223/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0476 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR CITIII
• Assessee Lawyers: R E BALASUBRAMANYAM
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Revision of order; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH C, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.773/(BANG/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) DR. AMEER JHAN SIRAJ PASHA, NO.36, 14 TH MAIN ROAD, 7 TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 102 APPELLANT PAN NO.BGFPS5452Q VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTL. TAXATION) BANGALORE. R ESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.E.BALASUBRAMANYAM, C A REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, CIT-III DATE OF HEARING : 07-04-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-04-2016 O R D E R PER SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL INSTITUTED, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSE SSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) DATED 30.03.2015 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2010-2011 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS, IN HIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL, RAIS ED A SOLITARY ISSUE, NAMELY, THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS ERRONEOU S AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW INASMUCH AS THE CIT HAD ASSUMED J URISDICTION ON A SUBJECT WHICH WAS DEBATABLE IN NATURE ON WHICH MORE THAN ON E VIEW WAS POSSIBLE. 2 ITA NO.773(B)15 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE AS FOLLO WS: THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF IN COME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE BELATEDLY ON 2.11.2011 WHICH WAS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSMENT WAS CONCLUDED ON 28.03.2013 VIDE U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE LOSS AS (I) FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS.28,40,251 /-; (II) SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS AT RS.27,30,469-/; & (III) LONG TERM CAPITAL AT RS.2,1 5,84,097/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO VIDE HIS COMMUNICATION ON 10.03.2015, SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL FOR REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. ON A PERUSAL OF THE PROPOSAL AND T HE SCRUTINY OF THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE WAS COMMUNICATED THE PROPOSE D REVISION AND THE REASONS THEREOF CALLING FOR HIS OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, TO THE PROPOSAL. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS AND ALSO CITING THE RULIN G OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD REPORTED IN 243 ITR 83 (SC), THE CIT HELD THAT 6..THIS IS A FIT CASE INVOKING THE POWERS PROVI DED IN SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 28.03.2013 IS SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND AFTER GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE OBJE CTIONS, IF ANY: 1. FOR ADOPTING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN TER MS OF SECTION 50C; AND 2. FOR DISALLOWING THE EXCESS INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN . 3. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE US W ITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: > THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 263 OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT IN ORDER TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF S. 263, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SUBORDINATE OFFICER 3 ITA NO.773(B)15 SHOULD BE BOTH ERRONEOUS AND PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE IN TEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE PRE-REQUISITE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICT ION BY THE CIT SUO MOTU UNDER IT IS THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS I N SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE; > CITING THE RULING OF THE HONBLE S.C IN MALABAR I NDUSTRIAL CO. LTD (SUPRA) THAT THE CIT HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS , NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE AO SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; & (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE PROVISION CANNOT BE I NVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE AO. IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS TO RAISE A FEAR THAT THERE COULD BE LOSS OF REVENUE THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. EVERY LOSS OF REVEN UE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN OF THE AO CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF THE REVENUE. SIMILARLY, EVERY TIME THERE IS A REASONABLE APPREHE NSION THAT THERE COULD BE SOME LOSS OF REVENUE, THIS SECTION CANNOT BE INVOKE D ESPECIALLY IF THE REVENUE COULD BE SECURED IN OTHER WAY WITHOUT AFF ECTING THE RIGHTS GIVEN TO THE TAXPAYER; > THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHAT IS TO BE EXAMINED IS WHETHER THERE WAS ANY PREJUDICE TO THE COLLECTION OF REVENUE WHEN THE ENT IRE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ALREADY PENDING BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND WHETHER THE REVENUE COULD HAVE BEEN SECURED WITHOUT INFRINGING UPON OR DEPRIVING T HE ASSESSEE OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHTS; > THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE POWERS OF THE CIT (A) ARE CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE AO. HE CAN DO EVERYTHING THAT THE AO C AN DO AND SOMETHING MORE TOO. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM S. 251(1)(A) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, U/S 250(2)(B), THE AO HAS AS MUCH RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN AN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND PRESENT HIS CASE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS. A COMBIN ED READING OF THESE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WOULD SHOW THAT IN THE INSTAN T CASE, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE ASST. ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS, ALL THAT THE CI T HAD TO DO TO SECURE THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE WAS TO DIRECT HIS AO TO PR ESENT THESE FACTS BEFORE 4 ITA NO.773(B)15 THE CIT (A) AND REQUEST THAT THE ASSESSMENT BE ENHA NCED. THIS WOULD HAVE ENABLED THE CIT (A) TO CONSIDER ALL ISSUES IN AN UN BIASED MANNER WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO A T THE SAME TIME. BY STEPPING IN AND CANCELLING THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT, H OWEVER, THE CIT HAS TAKEN AWAY THE VERY SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL AN D HIS PRE-EMPTED THE CIT (A) FROM DISCHARGING AND EXERCISING HIS DUTIES AND POWERS AND THEREBY DEPRIVING THE ASSESSEE OF GETTING HIS GRIEVANCES AD DRESSED; > THAT FURTHER REFERENCE TO CLAUSE (C) TO EXPLN. 1 TO S. 263 MAY ALSO BE MADE IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS. TH IS CLAUSE PROVIDES THAT WHERE AN ORDER THAT IS SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL, THEN THE POWERS OF THE CIT UNDER THIS SECTI ON SHALL EXTEND TO ONLY THOSE MATTERS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE APPEAL. THAT THIS CLAUSE SHOULD BE READ SO AS TO MEAN THAT SO LONG AS AN APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE CIT (A), NO REVISION CAN BE MADE EVEN ON THOSE ISSUES WHICH THOUGH NOT SUBJECT MATTER APPEAL, CAN NEVERTHELESS BE CONSIDERED BY THE CIT (A). ONCE THE CIT (A) HAS PASSED HIS ORDER, THE CIT CAN REVISE THE ORDER ON ANY ISSUE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE CIT (A), BUT SO LONG AS IT IS PENDING BEFORE THE CIT (A), THEN EVERY ISSUE CAN BE BROUGHT BEFORE HIM; AND THAT THIS APPROACH WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IN ALL RESPECTS SINCE THE INTERESTS OF BOTH THE TAXPAYER AND THE REVENUE ARE FULLY SAFEGUARDED; > THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT INDEPE NDENT APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE CIT. SECTION 263 REQUIRES THAT THE CIT TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE ANY RECORDS AND AFTER DUE INDEPENDENT A PPLICATION OF MIND, IN THE EVENT HE CONSIDERS ANYTHING ERRONEOUS IN THE OR DER PASSED BY A SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY, HE MAY INVOKE HIS JURISDICTI ON UNDER THE SECTION. HOWEVER, FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE AO HIMSELF MADE A PROPOSAL FOR THE REVISION WHICH WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE RANGE HEAD THEREBY SHOWING THAT THERE WAS NO INDEPENDENT APPLI CATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE CIT; & 5 ITA NO.773(B)15 > THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THE ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CIT IN INVOKING H ER JURISDICTION U/S 263 WAS UNWARRANTED, UNTENABLE AND THE ORDER PASSED WAS BAD IN LAW WHICH SHOULD BE QUASHED. IN CONCLUSION, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THIS HONBLE BEN CH BE PLEASED TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AND GRANT RELIEF BY QUASHING THE ORDER OF REVISION. TO DRIVE HOME HIS P OINT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAD PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE A BENCH, PUNE TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF SPAN OVERSEAS LIMITED V. CIT-III, PUNE IN ITA NO.1223/PN/2013 DATED 21.12.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 4.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D.R HAD SUBM ITTED THAT SINCE THE AO HAD FAILED TO MAKE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AND APPLY CORRECT PROVISIONS OF LAW WHICH LED TO ERRONEOUS DETERMINATION OF LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAINS [LTCG] AND CONSEQUENT UNDER-ASSESSMENT OF INCOME. LIKEWISE IN COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THE LEARN ED DR SUBMITTED, AS PER THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.37.73 LAKH S FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY[HP], THE AO HA D ALLOWED RS.61.87 LAKHS WHICH LED TO AN ERRONEOUS DETERMINATION OF IN COME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FLAWS, THE CIT HELD THAT THIS WAS A FIT CASE IN INVOKING THE POWERS CONTAINED IN S. 263 OF THE ACT AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DT.28.3 .2013 WAS SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE 6 ITA NO.773(B)15 PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT AS THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY ON THE STAND OF THE CIT, THE SAME REQUIRE S TO BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBM ISSIONS, PERUSED THE RELEVANT CASE RECORDS AND THE FINDINGS OF THE HONB LE BENCH OF PUNE TRIBUNAL ON WHICH THE LEARNED AR HAS PLACED RELIANC E. 5.1. IT IS A FACT THAT IN ORDER TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF S. 263, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SUB-ORDINATE OFFICER SHOULD BE BOTH ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE PRE-RE QUISITE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION BY THE CIT SUO MOTU UNDER IT, IS T HAT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. TO JUSTIFY HIS STAND THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED THE RULING OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. (SUPRA). WITH DUE RESPECTS, WE HAVE DULY PERUSED THE RULING OF THE HONBLE COURT W HEREIN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT WHEN AN ITO ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE; OR WHERE TW O VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ITO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIO NER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS RIGHTLY HIGHLIGHTE D BY THE CIT IN HER ORDER UNDER DISPUTE, THERE WAS ONLY ONE VIEW WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND THE AO DID NOT ADOPT THAT VIEW. THEREFORE, THE INSTANT CASE DOESNT HIT BY THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED IN THE RULING OF THE HONBLE COURT (SUPRA). 7 ITA NO.773(B)15 5.2. WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER OBJECTION OF THE ASSSESSEE THAT SINCE THE AO HAD NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF THE APP LICATION OF S. 50C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OCCASION TO EXERC ISE THE RIGHTS PROVIDED TO HIM ETC., WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO THE FINDINGS OF THE EARLIER BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT MADHU BHANDARI IN ITA N O.1241/BANG/2011 ON A SIMILAR ISSUE WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED AS UNDER: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ON THE ASPECT REGARDING THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION U /S 263 OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINE D THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. NOTHI NG HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ANY SUCH ENQUIRY HAD BEEN MADE BY THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED THIS ASPECT AND FAILURE TO DO SO RENDERS THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. WE, THERE FORE, HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT WAS JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 5.3. IN CONSONANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE EAR LIER BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE TO THAT OF T HE MATTER UNDER DISPUTE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT WAS JUSTIFIED IN RE JECTING THIS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 8 ITA NO.773(B)15 5.4. WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION BEFORE US THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT INDEPENDENT APPLI CATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE CIT, AND THAT S. 263 REQUIRES THE C IT TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE RECORDS AND AFTER DUE INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MI ND ETC., WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO THE WORDINGS OF THE CIT IN HER IMPUGNED ORDER ON PARA 1 THAT .ON PERUSAL OF THE PROPOSAL AND ACCOMPANYING RECORDS , A LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE.. THE ABOVE WORDINGS OF THE CIT IMPLICITLY IMPLY THAT ONLY AFTER DUE PERUSAL OF THE ACCOMPANYING RECORDS AND IN APPLICATION OF MIND, A LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE COMMUN ICATING THE PROPOSED REVISION. THUS, THE CIT HAD DULY COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN S. 263 OF THE ACT. THUS, THIS CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE IS ALSO REJECTED. 5.5. FURTHER, THE LEARNED AR, DURING THE COURS E OF HEARING BEFORE US, HAD PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS OF THE H ONBLE A PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SPAN OVERSEAS LTD (SUPRA). WE SHALL NO W ANALYZE AS TO WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FIT IN TO THE ASSESSEES CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5.6. IN THE CASE OF SPAN OVERSEAS LTD (SUPRA), THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT IN THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE CI T HAD MERELY REPRODUCED THE ALLEGED SHORTCOMING POINTED OUT BY T HE AO IN HIS PROPOSAL. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE, THE HONBLE BENCH OBSERVED THAT THE CIT HAD INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF S. 263 ON THE PRO POSAL SENT BY THE AO AND THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER POINTE D OUT BY THE AO. FURTHER, THE HONBLE BENCH WENT ON TO OBSERVE THAT 8.FOR INVOKING 9 ITA NO.773(B)15 REVISIONARY POWERS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX H AS TO EXERCISE HIS OWN DISCRETION AND JUDGMENT. HERE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 AT THE MERE SUGGESTION OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WITHOUT EXERCISING HIS OWN DISCRETION AND JUDGMENT. 5.7. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF VINAY PRATAP THAC KER V. CIT IN ITA NO. 2939/MUM/2011 DATED 27.02.2013, THE HONBLE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO RECORDED ITS FINDINGS THAT 23. WE HAVE SEEN FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT DATED 11.2.2011, THE CIT ADMITS, A PROPOSAL WAS RECEIVED ON 10.06.2010 FROM THE AO UNDER SECTION 26 3 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961, POINTING OUT SOME DISCREPANCIES/SHORT COMINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IN SO FAR AS THE CI T WAS CONCERNED, HE DID NOT APPLY HIS OWN MIND WHICH THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT OF INDIA HAS SAID IN ICICI BANK (SUPRA) THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND. 5.8. TAKING INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE ISSUE AND ALSO IN CONSONANCE OF THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNALS (SUPRA), THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL TOOK A STAND THAT THE CIT HAD INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF S. 263 WITHOUT APPLYING HIS OWN INDEPENDENT JUDG MENT AND MERELY AT THE BEHEST OF PROPOSAL FORWARDED BY THE DY. CIT IS AGAI NST THE SPIRIT OF THE ACT. 5.9. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE UNDER CONS IDERATION, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CIT HAD, AS POINTED OUT EARLIER, AFTER DU E PERUSAL OF THE PROPOSAL 10 ITA NO.773(B)15 AND ALSO THE ACCOMPANYING RECORDS, A SHOW-CASE NOTICE (LETTER) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE COMMUNICATING THE PROPOSED REVISION S. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT HAD APPLIED HER MIND AFTER DULY PERUSING THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND, THUS, THE CASE LAW CITED BY T HE ASSESSEE WILL NOT COME TO HIS RESCUE. 6. THE OTHER CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE POWERS OF THE CIT (A) ARE CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE AO. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, S. 251(1)(A) PROVIDES THAT IN DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL, THE CIT (A) SHALL HAVE THE POWERS IN AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSM ENT TO CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUAL THE ASSESSMENT. FURTHER, U/S 250 (2)(B), THE AO HAS AS MUCH RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN AN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND PRESENT HIS CASE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS. A COMBINED READING OF THESE PROV ISIONS OF THE ACT WOULD SHOW THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, EVEN ASSUMING THAT T HE ASST. ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS, ALL THAT THE CIT HAD TO DO TO SECURE TH E INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE WAS TO DIRECT HIS AO TO PRESENT THESE FACTS BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND REQUEST THAT THE ASSESSMENT BE ENHANCED. THIS WOULD HAVE ENABLED THE CIT (A) TO CONSIDER ALL ISSUES IN AN UNBIASED MANNER WH ILE DISPOSING OFF THE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO AT THE SAME TIME. 6.1. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS PUT-FORTH BY THE LEARNED AR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AR IS TO TALLY MISCONCEIVED. THE COMMISSIONER HAS AMPLE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT TO CANCEL THE ASSESSMENT IF HE/SHE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSE D THEREIN BY THE 11 ITA NO.773(B)15 ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRE D AN APPEAL BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL CIT (A) AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND PENDING FOR DISPOSAL - WHICH DOESNT BAR THE ADMINISTRATIVE CIT TO INITIATE THE REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT, IF HE/S HE CONSIDERS, AFTER PERUSAL/EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD, THAT SUCH ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT ERESTS OF THE REVENUE. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT WAS WITHIN HER REALM TO INITIATE ACTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND SINCE THERE IS NO ANY AMBIGUITY WHICH WARRANTS OUR INTERVENTION. IN ESSENCE, THE STAND O F THE CIT IS UPHELD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 1 2 TH APRIL, 2016. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (GEORGE GEORGE K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AM* PLACE : BANGALORE DATED : 12-04-2016 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5. DR 6. GF BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE