Smt. Illaben Jayantkumar Doshi, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 124/RJT/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5461 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RD LALCHANDANI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Assessment record; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 14A; 263

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH E COURT AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.124/RJT/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 SMT.ILLABEN JAYANTKUMAR DOSHI ILLA VILLA, ASHAPURA ROAD B/H. KARANSINJI SCHOOL RAJKOT. VS ITO, WARD-2(2) RAJKOT. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.D. LAL CHANDANI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 05/12/2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 4/02/2019 O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST ORDER OF THE LD.CIT-2, RAJKOT DATED 29.3.2017 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2012-13. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOUR GROUNDS, BUT HER GRIEVANCE REVOLVES AROUND A SINGLE ISSUE VIZ. THE LD.CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AND HOLDING THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, IT DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO.124/RJT/2017 - 2 - 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 29.9.2012 DECLARING NIL IN COME. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 10.6.2014 DETERMINING NIL INCOME. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER WOULD REVEAL THAT THE LD.AO DID NOT MAKE ELABORATE DISCUS SION ABOUT THE NATURE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SIMPLY OBSERVED THAT ITP AS WELL AS HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE HIM , AND CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH HIM, THEREAFTER HE PROCEEDED TO COMP UTE THE INCOME. ASSESSMENT ORDER IS RUNNING IN JUST HALF A PAGE, IF WE EXCLUDE CALCULATION PART OF INCOME. ON PERUSAL OF THIS ASSESSMENT ORDE R, THE LD.COMMISSIONER FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE AO HAS N OT MADE ANY INQUIRY, THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOU S WHICH HAS CAUSED PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. HE RECORDED R EASON AND CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT OR DER BE NOT SET ASIDE. COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSE E IS PLACED ON PAGE NOS.20 TO 23 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH READS ASUNDER : SMT. ILLABEN JAYANTKUMAR DOSHI, ILLA VILLA', ASHAPURA ROAD, RAJKOT. AND /OR 206, VANIYA BHAVAN, DHEBAR ROAD, RAJKOT. MADAM, SUB: SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF SMT. ILLABEN JAYANTKUMAR DOSHI FOR A.Y. 2012-13 - REG. PLEASE REFER TO THE ABOVE SUBJECT. 2. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS SHOWS AN ORDER U/S . 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED BY THE A.O. ON 10/06/2014 DETERMINING NI L TOTAL INCOME ITA NO.124/RJT/2017 - 3 - AS RETURNED BY YOU. THE REASON FOR SELECTION OF THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS WAS 'LARGE INTEREST INCOME RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME(U/S. 14A). 3.1. ON GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IT I S NOTICED THAT BALANCE IN YOUR CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS OPENING BALANCE WAS RS.1,59,40,712/- AND AS CLOSING BALANCE WAS RS.1,57 ,39,034/-. YOU HAD PROCURED INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AS SECURED LOANS OF RS.1,69,37,158/-AND AS UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 5,73, 24,900/-. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT YOU HAVE ALLOWED LOANS AND ADVANC ES TOTALING TO RS.2,91,73,941/-. HOWEVER, YOU HAD CHARGED INTEREST OF RS.5,35,493/- ONLY FROM PARUL J DOSHI, WHOM LOAN OF RS.55,23,730/- WAS GIVEN. NO INTEREST HAD BEEN CHAR GED FROM REMAINING LOANS AND ADVANCES ALLOWED. IT IS OBSERVE D THAT NO EXPLANATION HAD BEEN OFFERED FOR NON-CHARGING OF IN TEREST AS WELL AS PURPOSE OF LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN. THE A.O. DID NOT ALLOW CORRESPONDING INTEREST PAID ON THE LOANS USED FOR N ON-BUSINESS PURPOSE. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT YOU HAD FDRS OF 1, 43,61,183/- EARNING INTEREST AT LOWER RATES THAN THE INTEREST P AID YOU ON LOANS. SINCE THE INVESTMENT IN FDRS WAS NOT YOUR BUSINESS, EXCESSIVE INTEREST PAID ON THE RELEVANT LOANS WAS LIABLE TO B E DISA LLOWED U/S. 36(L)(III)OF THE ACT. 3.2. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT YOU HAD EARNED EXE MPT INCOME IN THE FORM OF DIVIDEND FROM SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS. AS D ISCUSSED ABOVE, YOU HAD NEGATIVE CAPITAL DURING THE ENTIRE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE FROM THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS . ACCORDINGLY A.O. SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIO NS OF THE SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, BEFORE ALLOWING INTEREST AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES. THOUGH THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER EXPENSES CLAIMED WERE LIABLE TO BE DISALLOW ED U/S.14A OF THE ACT, THE A.O. DID NOT VERIFY THIS ASPECT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3.3. MOREOVER, IT IS SEEN THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN LABOU R INCOME OF RS.30,72,400/- AND CLAIMED ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS.26,90,945/-INCLUDING INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.26, 62,199/-. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT MAJORITY OF LABOUR I NCOME RECEIPTS SHOWN AS RECEIVED IN CASH. ON GOING THROUGH YOUR BA NK ACCOUNT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE CASH INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE CASH BOOK AS ITA NO.124/RJT/2017 - 4 - AND WHEN THERE WAS SHORTAGE OF FUNDS IN THE BANK AC COUNT. THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS SHOW THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUC ED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE LABOUR INCOME. FURTHER IT IS NOT C LEAR FROM THE RECORDS THAT AS TO HOW INTEREST EXPENSES CLAIMED AS EXPENSES WAS RELATED TO YOUR LABOUR INCOME. 3.4 BESIDES IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT YOU HAVE CLAIME D SETOFF OF BROUGHT FORWARDED LOSS OF RS.5,96,197/- FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND BROUGHT FORWARDED UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.7,1 19/- AGAINST INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES RESPECTIVELY. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, NO SETOFF OF SUCH BROUGHT FORWARDED LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE AGAINST THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS SHOWS THAT THE A.O. ALLOWED YOUR AFORESAID YOUR CLAIM FOR SETOFF WITHOUT FURTHER VERIFICATION. 4. THE AO HAS MADE ASSESSMENT IN THE MANNER AS DISCUSSED ABOVE WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY OR VERIFICATION RE GARDING NATURE OF LABOUR INCOME, INTEREST EXPENSES AND APPLICABILI TY OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT BEFORE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT. THIS R ESULTED IN ASSESSMENT ON LOWER SIDE AS WELL AS CHARGING OF LES SER TAX. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT BY THE AO WAS MADE WITHOUT PROPER INQUIR Y AND INVESTIGATION AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT ONLY ERRONEO US BUT ALSO PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AS PRESCRI BED IN SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 5. EXPLANATION 2 APPENDED BELOW SEC. 263(1) OF THE ACT AS INSERTED SHALL THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 DECLARES THE C ONDITIONS UNDER WHICH AN ORDER SHALL DEEMED BE CONSIDERED AS ERRONE OUS. THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER. 'FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTIONS IT IS HEREBY DEC LARED THAT AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, IF, IN THE OPINION OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSION ER,- (C) THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT MAKING INQUIRIES OR VERIFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE; 6. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 14 3(3) OF THE ACT PASSED WITHOUT MAKING REQUIRED INQUIRIES AND VE RIFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO REGARDING NATURE OF LABOUR ITA NO.124/RJT/2017 - 5 - INCOME, INTEREST EXPENSES AND APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A OF THE AC T. THE ABOVE FACTS SHOW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2012-13 APPEA RS TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE R EVENUE. THEREFORE, I HEREBY INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 OF THE I.T. AC T WITH A VIEW TO PASS A SUITABLE ORDER. BEFORE PASSING SUCH ORDER, Y OU ARE HEREBY GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER. IN THIS CONNECTION, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO ATTEND THIS OFFICE ON 17/03/20017 AT 12.30 PM ALONG WITH YOUR WRITTEN SUBMISSION. SD/- PR.COMMISSIONER, RAJKOT-2 4. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WHICH HAS BEEN REPRO DUCED BY THE LD.CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON PAGE NO.3 TO 5. TH EREAFTER, THE LD.COMMISSIONER ADJUDICATED EACH ISSUE MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, AND OBSERVED THAT IN NONE OF THE ISSUES THE AO HAS CONDUCTED ANY INQUIRY. THEREFORE, HE WAS CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS WHICH CAUSED A PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECTED THE AO TO PASS FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE IM PUGNING THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT CONTENDED THAT THOUGH NO DISCUSSION IS A VAILABLE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BUT IT IS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE AO TO PASS ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL OVER HIM. HO WEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30.1.2014 UNDER SECTION 142(1) AND INVITED EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE ON 28 ITEMS. COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS AVAILAB LE ON PAGE NO.13 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE TOOK US THROUGH THIS SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE. THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTE R DATED 14.2.2014 AND COPY OF THE SAME HAS BEEN PLACED ON PAGE NOS.14 TO 16 OF THE PAPER ITA NO.124/RJT/2017 - 6 - BOOK. APART FROM THE ABOVE, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET, LEDGER ACCOUNT, S HOWING SHARE DIVIDEND, INTEREST AMOUNT PAYABLE ETC. THE LD.COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE LD.COMMISSIONER HAS NOT POINTED OUT IN HIS ORDER AS TO HOW THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. UNLESS HE POINTED OUT A PARTICULAR ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE AO, HE C ANNOT REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD.COMMISSIONER CANNOT REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE AO FOR FURTHER INQUIRY UNLESS IT IS ESTABLISHED THA T BY NOT CONDUCTING AN INQUIRY, AN ERROR HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE AO. FOR BUTTRESSING THIS CONTENTION, HE REPLIED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF JHULELAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPN. VS. DCIT, 56 ITD 345 MUM. HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE COMMIS SIONER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURTHER INVESTI GATION. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT INVESTIGATION CONDU CTED BY THE AO SHOULD MATCH TO THE STANDARD OR THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF THE COMMISSIONER. HE MADE REFERENCE TO THE DECISION IN THE FOLLOWING CAS ES: I) M/S.RACHANA FINANCE & INVESTMENTS P.LTD. CIT, ITA NO.2795/MUM/2014 II) UNIVERSAL PRODUCT P.LTD. VS. CIT, ITA NO.2056/DEL/2 013 III) SHRI NARAYAN TATU RANE VS. ITO, ITA NO.2690 AND 2691/MUM/2016 IV) CIT VS. VIKAS POLYMERS, (DELHI) UNREPORTED ITR 3/19 91 DATED 16.8.2010 V) CIT VS. SHREE MANJUNATHESWARE PACKING PRODUCTS AND CAMPHOR WORKS; 143 CTR (SC) 406 VI) CIT VS. SESHASAYEE PAPER AND BOARD LTD., 242 ITR 49 (MAD) 5. HE HAS PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF THE ABOVE DECI SIONS. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER AND CONTENDED THAT THE DETAILS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITA NO.124/RJT/2017 - 7 - PAGE NOS.14 TO 16 I.E. REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE SHOW CAUSE RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, IT IS INCOMPLETE AND THESE ARE SKETCHY. COMPLETE DETAILS ARE NOT ANNEXED ALON G WITH THESE SUBMISSIONS. A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED WITH REGA RD TO THE INTEREST EXPENSES, BUT REPLY TO THIS QUERY IS THAT DETAILS S UBMITTED IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE EXCEEDING RS.2 LAKHS WERE GIVEN TO THE AO. 7. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. BEFORE CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS C ONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES, WE DEEM IT PERTINENT T O TAKE NOTE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL TESTS PROPOUNDED IN VARIOUS JUDGMENTS R ELEVANT FOR JUDGING THE ACTION OF THE CIT TAKEN U/S. 263. THE I TAT IN THE CASE OF MRS. KHATIZA S. OOMERBHOY VS. ITO, MUMBAI, 101 TTJ 1 095, ANALYZED IN DETAIL VARIOUS AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDI NG THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUST RIES 243 ITR 83 AND HAS PROPOUNDED THE FOLLOWING BROADER PRINCIPLE TO J UDGE THE ACTION OF CIT TAKEN UNDER SECTION 263. (I) THE CIT MUST RECORD SATISFACTION THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. BOTH THE CONDITIONS MUST BE FULFILLED. (II) SEC. 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVER Y TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE AO AND IT WAS ONL Y WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTR ACTED. (III) AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT AP PLICATION OF LAW WILL SUFFICE THE REQUIREMENT OF ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. (IV) IF THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, SUCH ORDER WILL FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF ERRONEOUS ORD ER. (V) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND IF THE AO HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW OR WHERE TWO VIEW S ARE ITA NO.124/RJT/2017 - 8 - POSSIBLE AND THE AO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH T HE CIT DOES NOT AGREE. IF CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOU S ORDER, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IS UNSUSTAINABLE UN DER LAW (VI) IF WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES ENQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINE THE INCOME, THE CIT, WHILE EXERCISING HIS POWER UNDER S 263 IS NOT PERMI TTED TO SUBSTITUTE HIS ESTIMATE OF INCOME IN PLACE OF THE I NCOME ESTIMATED BY THE AO. (VII) THE AO EXERCISES QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER VESTED IN HIS AND IF HE EXERCISES SUCH POWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ARR IVE AT A CONCLUSION, SUCH CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CIT DOES NOT FEEL SATI SFIED WITH THE CONCLUSION. (VIII) THE CIT, BEFORE EXERCISING HIS JURISDICTION UNDER S . 263 MUST HAVE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION . (IX) IF THE AO HAS MADE ENQUIRIES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES AND T HE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DETAILED EXPLANATION BY A LETTER IN WRITING AND THE AO ALLOWS THE CLAIM ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DECISION OF THE AO CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HIS ORDER HE DOES NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD. 8. AS FAR AS DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY THE LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCERNED, PROPOSITION CANVASSED IN THESE DECISIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CULLED OUT BY US WHILE TAKING TEST PROPOUNDED BY TH E ITAT IN THE CASE OF MRS. KHATIZA S. OOMERBHOY VS. ITO, MUMBAI, (SUPRA). THE QUESTION IS, IF ACCOUNTING ENTRIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE BEING ACC EPTED BY THE AO WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY INQUIRY, THEN THE PROCEEDING S WILL BE AN ERRONEOUS PROCEEDINGS. THIS HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES. I F WE CONSIDER ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED UN DER SECTION 142(1) ITA NO.124/RJT/2017 - 9 - AND REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN IT WOULD REVEAL T HAT THE AO HAS NEVER APPLIED HIS MIND TO ANY OF HIS DETAILS. HE SIMPLY BASED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY ASPECT. THEREFORE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS RIGHTLY HARBOURED A BELIEF THAT PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE REVENUE FOR NOT CONDUCTING INQUIRY, WHAT TO TALK OF PROPER INQUIRY. THEREFORE, LD.COMMISSIONER HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN COGNIZANCE UNDER SECTION 263 AND NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE IS CALLED FOR. THIS APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. SD/- (PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER