Shri Krushnasinh Dilubha Vaghela, Ahmedabad V. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 1249/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1724 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGDISH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Salary income; Audit objection; Cost of acquisition; Revised return; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 234B; 263

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.1249/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2010-2011 KRUSHNASINH DILUBHA VAGHELA AT-KUNDAL TALUKA-SANAND AHMEDABAD 382 110. PAN : AGEPN 4431 G VS THE PR.COMMISSIONER - 3 AHMEDABAD. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DIVETIA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI JAGDISH, CIT - DR / DATE OF HEARING : 10/03/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02/05/2016 $%/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD.PR.CIT- III, AHMEDABAD DATED 9.3.2015 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2010-2011. 2. SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE L D.COMMISSIONER HAS ERRED IN TAKING ACTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT , AND THEREBY, SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR FRAMING DE NOVO ASSESSMENT ORDER. ITA NO.1249/AHD/2015 2 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 2.5.2011 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,58,010/ -. THE ASSESSEE HAS REVISED THIS RETURN ON 29.3.2012 DECLARING INCO ME OF RS.5,82,800/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 1.8.2 012, WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AO HAS PASSED AN ASSESSMENT ORDER RUNNING INTO HALF-PAGE. THE ORDER READ AS UNDER: IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 02/05/2011 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,58,010/- U/S 44AF OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS R EVISED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND E-FILED ON 29/03/2012 DECLARING INCOM E OF RS.5,82,800/-. THE RETURN ORIGINAL RETURN WAS PROCE SSED U/S. 143(1) OF IT ACT. THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUT INY UNDER CASS AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT ISSUED ON 01/08/2 012, WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, DUE TO CHANGE IN-INCUMBENT, NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 05/10/2 012 ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED 143(2) & 142(1) O F THE ACT, SHRI LAXMAN KALWANI & AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE A SSESSEE ATTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED THE DETAIL S AS CALLED FOR THE SAME IS VERIFIED ON TEST CHECK BASIS. THE ASSES SEE HAS INCOME FROM RETAIL SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCTS. HE HAS SH OWN INCOME FROM SALARY OF RS. 75,000/- AND OTHER SOURCES RS. 3 5,650/- AND TOTAL INCOME OF BUSINESS OF RS.5,82,800/-AFTER CALM ING DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A OF RS. 23,654/-. THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE YEAR HAS ALSO BUSINESS OF LAND DEVELOPING AND TRADING IN LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED LAND OF RS.79,59,818/- AND S ALE OF RS.85,71,944/- AND AFTER CLAIMING EXPENSES SHOWN NE T PROFIT OF RS.4,24,791/-. HE HAS ALSO SHOWN AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.3,90,555/-. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR AND SAME IS VERIFIED ON TEST CHECK BASIS. 4. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE, TOTAL INCOME IS COMP UTED AS UNDER: ITA NO.1249/AHD/2015 3 TOTAL INCOME AS PER ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME RS. 1,58,010/- ADD: DIFFERENCE INCOME AS PER REVISED RETURN OF INC OME RS.4,24,790/- TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED RS.5,82,800/- AGRICULTURE INCOME FOR RATE PURPOSE RS.3,90 ,555/- 5. ASSESSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. ISSUED DE MAND NOTICE AND CHALLAN AFTER GIVING CREDIT OF PREPAID TAXES, IF AN Y, AFTER DUE VERIFICATION. CHARGED INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B & - 234C AS APPLICABLE. 4. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, LD.COMMISSIONER FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER, WHICH H AS CAUSED A PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 5.11.2014 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS AVAILABLE PAGE NOS.10-14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN RES PONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 10.12.2014. AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, LD.COMMISSIONER HAS PAS SED IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD.COMMISSIONER HAS BASICALLY HELD THAT THE AO DID NOT INQUIRE ANY OF THE ISSUES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. HE HAS ACCEPTED THE RETURN AS IT IS, WITHOUT ANY DELIBERAT ION, AND THEREFORE, AN ERRONEOUS ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED, WHICH HAS CAUSED P REJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHIL E IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 OF THE ACT. COPY OF THE NOTICE IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO.85 OF THE PAPER BOOK NO.2. HE TOOK US THROUGH THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. ON THE STRENGTH OF THIS SHOW CA USE NOTICE, HE CONTENDED THAT AO HAS APPLIED HIS MIND BEFORE SCRUT INIZING THE RETURN OF ITA NO.1249/AHD/2015 4 THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS APPENDED A NOTE WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, MEANING THEREBY, THE AO HAS GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT DETAILS. COPY OF THIS NOTE IS ALSO PL ACED ON PAGE NO.84 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER SCRUTINIZING THE ACCOUNTS AND LD.COMMISSIONER OUGHT TO HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6. THE LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE OR DER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER. 7. AT THIS STAGE, BEFORE CONSIDERING THE MULTI-FOLD CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES, WE DEEM IT PERTINENT TO TAKE N OTE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL TESTS PROPOUNDED IN VARIOUS JUDGMENTS RELEVANT FOR JUDGING THE ACTION OF THE CIT TAKEN U/S 263. THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MRS. KHATIZA S. OOMERBHOY VS. ITO, MUMBAI, 101 TTJ 1095, ANALYZED I N DETAIL VARIOUS AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES 243 ITR 83 AND HAS PROPOUNDED THE FOLLOWING BROADER PRINCIPLE TO JUDGE 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 REVENUE. 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 ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTIO N WILL BE ATTRACTED. ITA NO.1249/AHD/2015 5 (III) AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION 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 VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE AO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGREE. IF CANN OT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER, UNLESS THE VIEW T AKEN BY THE AO IS UNSUSTAINABLE UNDER 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 T HE INCOME, THE CIT, WHILE EXERCISING HIS POWER UNDER S 263 IS NOT PERMITTED TO SUBSTITUTE HIS ESTIMATE OF INCOME IN PLACE OF THE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE AO. (VII) THE AO EXERCISES QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER VESTED IN HIS AND IF HE EXERCISES SUCH POWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW AND ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION, SUCH CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CIT DOES NOT FEE STRATIFIED 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 SATISF IED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DECISION OF THE AO CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUS E IN HIS ORDER HE DOES NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSI ON IN THAT REGARD. ITA NO.1249/AHD/2015 6 8. APART FROM THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES, WE DEEM IT APPR OPRIATE TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUN BEAM AUTO REPORTED IN 227 CTR 113, AND GEE VEE ENTERPRISES LTD VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (99 ITR 375). IN THE CASE OF SUN BEAM AUTO, THE HON'BLE HIGH COUR T HAS POINTED OUT A DISTINCTION BETWEEN LACK OF INQUIRY AND INADEQUATE INQUIRY. IF THERE IS A LACK OF ENQUIRY, THEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE B RANDED AS ERRONEOUS. THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIG H COURT ARE WORTH TO NOTE: 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF TH E COUNSEL ON THE OTHER SIDE AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. THE FIRST ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSID ERATION IS ABOUT THE EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. AS NOTED ABOVE, THE SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE WAS THAT WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THIS ASPECT SPECIFICALLY WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION WA S REVENUE OR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THIS ARGUMENT PREDI CATES ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH APPARENTLY DOES NOT G IVE ANY REASONS WHILE ALLOWING THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE A S REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT BE INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE ISSUE. THERE ARE JUDGME NTS GALORE LAYING DOWN THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE DETAILED REASON IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY ITEM O F DEDUCTION, ETC. THEREFORE, ONE HAS TO SEE FROM THE RECORD AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND BEFORE ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS RI GHT IN HIS SUBMISSION THAT ONE HAS TO KEEP IN MIND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LACK OF INQUIRY AND INADEQUA TE INQUIRY. IF THERE WAS ANY INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE , THAT ITA NO.1249/AHD/2015 7 WOULD NOT BY ITSELF, GIVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIO NER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER. IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY, THAT SUCH A COURSE O F ACTION WOULD BE OPEN. 9. IN THE CASE OF GEE VEE ENTERPRISE VS. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED IN 99 ITR PAGE 375, THE HONBLE COURT HAS EXPOUNDED THE APPROACH OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING ASS ESSMENT ORDER. THE OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE COURT ON PAGES 386 OF JO URNAL READ AS UNDER:- IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRIES BEFORE CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER. THE COMMISSIONER CAN REGARD THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E INCOME-TAX OFFICER SHOULD HAVE MADE FURTHER INQUIRIES BEFORE A CCEPTING THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN. THE REASON IS OBVIOUS. THE POSITION AND FUNCTION O F THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER IS VERY DIFFIDENT FROM THAT OF A CIVIL COURT. THE STATEMENT MADE IN A PLEADING PROVED BY THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE MAY BE ADOPTED BY A CIVIL COURT IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY REBUTTAL. THE CIVIL COURT IS NEUTRAL. IT SIMPLY G IVES DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADING AND EVIDENCE WHICH COMES BEFO RE IT. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS NOT ONLY ON ADJUDICATOR BUT A LSO AN INVESTIGATOR. HE CANNOT REMAIN PASSIVE IN THE FACE OF THE RETURN WHICH IS APPARENTLY IN ORDER BUT CALLED FOR FURTHER INQUIRY. IT IS HIS DUTY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE SUCH AS TO PROVOKE AN INQUIRY IT IS BECAUSE IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER T O FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN CIR CUMSTANCES WOULD MADE SUCH AN INQUIRY PRUDENT THAT THE WORD ERRONEO US IN SECTION 263 INCLUDES THE FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH AN ENQUIRY. THE ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS BECAUSE SUCH AN INQUIRY HAS NOT B EEN MADE AND NOT BECAUSE THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER IF ALL THE FACTS STATED THEREIN ARE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT. ITA NO.1249/AHD/2015 8 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, LET US EXAMINE THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT TWO SHOW -CAUSE NOTICES WERE ISSUED BY THE LD.COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE FIRST SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 5.11.2014 , AND THE SECOND ONE WAS ON 22.1.2015. THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASS ED ON 9.3.2015. ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN TH E FIRST SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, LD.COMMISSIONER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT FILED TAX AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH RETURN, AND THEREFORE, THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSME NT YEAR, NO AUDIT REPORT WAS REQUIRED TO BE ATTACHED WITH THE INCOME- TAX RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT AUDIT REPORT WELL WITHIN THE STATU TORY TIME. IT HAS DISCLOSED THE DETAILS IN THE RETURN, AND DULY SUBMI TTED THE AUDIT REPORT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN OUR OPINION, THIS C ANNOT BE A GROUND TO TAKE ACTION UNDER SECTION 263, BECAUSE, THE ASSESSE E HAS COMPLIED WITH HIS OBLIGATION TO GET ITS ACCOUNTS AUDITED WELL WIT HIN TIME. HE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO FILE THE AUDIT REPORT. 11. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE LD.COMMISSIONER IS THAT ON PERUSAL OF CASH BOOK AND OTHER DETAILS, IT REVEALED THAT THERE WAS AN ACCOUNT CALLED LOAN GIVEN ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CA SH AND THE AO HAS NOT ENQUIRED TO THIS ACCOUNT NOR INITIATED PROCEEDI NGS UNDER SECTION 271D FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. W E FIND THAT ON THESE ASPECTS, NEITHER THE AO HAS MADE ANY INQUIRY NOR IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THUS , THE LD.COMMISSIONER IS JUSTIFIED TO TAKE THIS ASPECT, A S A REASON FOR INITIATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263. SIMILARLY, IN THE S HOW-CAUSE NOTICE ITA NO.1249/AHD/2015 9 UNDER SECTION 263, THE LD.COMMISSIONER HAS HIGHLIGH TED FIVE POINTS IN THE NOTICE DATED 5.11.2014 AND SEVEN POINTS IN THE SECOND NOTICE. PARTICULARLY, THE AO HAS NOT VERIFIED THE SUNDRY CR EDITORS OF RS.90,94,000/- AVAILABLE IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE AO HAS NOT VERIFIED THE FACT THAT SHREEJI DEVELOPERS HAD MADE PAYMENT O F RS.85,71,944/- TO PRAVINCHANDRA AND OTHERS WHO WERE THE SELLERS OF 3 PLOTS. THE AO HAS NOWHERE VERIFIED, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ANY PAYMENT OR NOT, BUT ALLOWED THE PURCHASE COST TO THE ASSESSEE. THI S ASPECT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN VERIFIED. ON DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE FACT S, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE RETURN AS IT IS, WITHOUT MAKING AN Y EFFORT TO INVESTIGATE THE ISSUES. 12. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COU RSE OF HEARING, RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF B & A PLANTATION AND INDUSTRIES VS. CIT, 290 ITR 39 5. HE CONTENDED THAT ON BASIS OF AUDITORS OBJECTION PROCEEDINGS UN DER SECTION 263 CANNOT BE INITIATED. AS FAR AS THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAI D DOWN IN THIS DECISION IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO DISPUTE QUA THAT. IF THE LD.COMMISSIONER INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER INFLUENCE OF AUDIT OBJECTION AND TOOK SUCH OBJECTION AS GOSPEL TRUTH, THEN, PROBABLY, THE LD.C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MAY BE JUSTIFIED TO RAISE THIS PLEA THAT ON THE BAS IS OF AUDITORS OBJECTION PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 263 OUGHT NOT TO BE INITIA TED, BUT IN CASE WHERE, THE ROLE OF AUDITORS OBJECTION IS ONLY ASSU MPTION OF A INFORMATION, WHICH HAS BEEN EVALUATED BY THE LD.COM MISSIONER, AND AFTER SUCH EVALUATION, HE WAS SATISFIED TO INITIATE THE ACTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THEN, LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE LD. COMMISSIONER TO INITIATE PROCEEDING. HIS OPINION OUGHT NOT TO BE I NFLUENCED BY ANY ITA NO.1249/AHD/2015 10 OBJECTION. THE ROLE OF OBJECTION IS ONLY AS A SOUR CE OF INFORMATION TO DECIDE WHETHER ANY ACTION UNDER SECTION 263 REQUIRE S TO BE TAKEN OR NOT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FA ILED TO DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 WAS UNDER THE INFL UENCE OF AUDITORS OBJECTION. THE LD.COMMISSIONER HAS RECORDED HIS IN DIVIDUAL SATISFACTION BEFORE TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER. THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT, HENCE DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 2 ND MAY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 02/05/2016