SMT MANJU DEVI CHOURASIA, ASANSOL V. DCIT CIR-2 , DHANBAD

ITA 138/RAN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9771 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: INDERJIT SINGH CIT LD
• Assessee Lawyers: U DASGUPTA LD
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263; 63

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO . 138/RAN/2018 SMT. MANJU DEVI CHOURASIA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI (BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA , J.M. & DR.A.L.SAINI, A.M.) IT A NO. 1 38 /RAN/1 8 : ASSTT. YEAR : 20 13 - 14 SMT. MANJU DEVI CHOURASIA PAN: ABSPC6452D VS D.C.I.T, CIRCLE - 2, DHANDBAD (APPELLANT /ASSESSE E ) (RESPONDENT /DEPARTMENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI U. DASGUPTA, ADVOCATE, LD.AR DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI INDERJIT SINGH, CIT, LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 9 - 01 - 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 - 0 2 - 2019 ORDER PER BENCH : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE , PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 13 - 14 , IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX , DHANBAD , UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ,1961, DATED 22 - 03 - 2018. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSE ARE AS FOLLOWS: - 1.FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE LD. PCIT WAS NOT LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE ACT 61, WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 2. FOR THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT 61, SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING FRESH INQUIRY (WITHOUT CAUSING ANY ENQUIRY HIMSELF AND WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER), IS L EGALLY INVALID AND THE REVISION ORDER U/S. 263, MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED. 3.FOR THAT THE LD. PCIT WAS NOT LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AFTER ALL NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AS STIPULATED IN NOTICE U/S 142(1), AND AFTER C ONSIDERING MATERIALS AND EXPLANATIONS OF THE APPELLANT, IS LEGALLY NOT TENABLE AND MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED. 2 ITA NO . 138/RAN/2018 SMT. MANJU DEVI CHOURASIA 4.FOR THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND ANY FURTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14, ON 29 - 09 - 2013 , DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10,36,390/ - . T HE ASSESSE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF BISCUITS, SOAP, HAIR DYE AND OTHER GODREJ PRODUCTS ETC. THE ASSESSEE`S CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS FOR THE REASON OF INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL IN A YEAR AND LARGE INCREASE OF UNSECURED LOAN. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 3 - 12 - 2015 ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME. 4 . LATER, T HE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (PR.CIT) EXERCISED HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 STATING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO , U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 3 - 12 - 2015 , IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND: - DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION OF RECORDS, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THERE IS HUGE ROTATION OF MONEY AMONGST RELATIVES WITHOUT PAYMENT OF RECEIPT OF INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED LOANS FROM THE RELATI VES AGGREGATING TO RS. 6,75,08,220/ - . FINANCIAL DEALING AMONGST THE RELATIVES/GROUP FIRMS/COS APPEARS TO BE TRANSFORMATIONS OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF RECIPIENTS OF LOAN FROM THE CAPITAL ADVANCED BY OTHERS. INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS HAD NOT BEEN DONE BY THE A.O. NON VERIFICATION OF THIS ISSUE HAS RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSE E . 5. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 263 OF T HE ACT , THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE PR.CIT THAT AO EXAMINED ALL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BANK STATEMENTS, BILLS VOUCHERS, AND ALL OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AS PER HIS SATISFACTION (AS PER RECORDS IN PARA - 2 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER). DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDING S, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) 3 ITA NO . 138/RAN/2018 SMT. MANJU DEVI CHOURASIA OF THE ACT, 1961 , DATED 8 TH MAY, 2015 AND AGAIN ON 9 TH JULY, 2015, WHERE THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION : I) SOURCE AND DETAILS OF INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL WITH EVIDENCE . II) REASONS FOR INC REASE OF UNSECURED LOANS WITH EVIDENCE . III) ALL BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS FOR F.Y . 2012 - 13 (RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR) IV) AUDIT REPORT AND BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2013 AND FOR EARLIER YEAR 31.03.2012. ALL REQUISITION OF THE AO AS PER REQUIREMENT WAS DULY F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSE, VIDE LETTER DATED 29.07.2015 . FROM THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE AO H AS DULY APPLIED HIS MIND FOR VERIFICATION OF THE LOANS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSE E FROM VARIOUS RELATIVES, AND HAS DULY EXAMINED THE LOANS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSE E , IN CONSULTANT WITH THE BANK STATEMENT, LOAN CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE PARTIES AND NOTHING WRONG HAS BEEN FOUND. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS , THE AO HAS PASSED A SHORT ORDER, WITHOUT MUCH DISCUSSION AND DETAIL REASONS, BUT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE RECORDS THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN APPLICATION OF MIND AND AN ENQUIRY BY THE AO ON THE ISSUE SOUGHT TO BE REVISED. THE AO HAS FORMED THIS OWN OPINION IN THE MATTER, AND HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ACCORDINGLY. POWE RS U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ,19 61 CANNOT BE INVOKED IN SUCH CASES. 6. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PR.CIT THAT THE FIGURE QUOTED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ( SCN ) AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,75,08,220/ - BEING RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR UNDER REVISION, IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE ASSESSE E, SMT. MANJU DEVI CHOURASIA IS THE SOLE PROPRIETOR OF THE CONCERN M/S. R.K TRADERS, ASANSOL, AND THE LOANS FROM RELATIVES HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE IN EARLIER YEARS , AS REFLECTED IN B ALANCE SHEET OF ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 . THERE HAS 4 ITA NO . 138/RAN/2018 SMT. MANJU DEVI CHOURASIA BEEN FURTHER ADDITION TO THE BROUGHT FORWARD BALANCE OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT D URING THE YEAR, WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN THE EXTRACT OF BALANCE SHEET OF R.K. TRADERS WHICH IS GIVEN BELOW TO THE EXTENT RELEVANT FOR OUR DISCUSSION: BALANCE SHEET OF R.K. TRADER S BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2012 ADDITION OR REPAYMENT DURING THE YEAR (THROUGH BANK CHANNEL) BALANCE AS AT 31`.03.2013 PANNALAL CHOURASIA 13,82,657 1,10,308 (REPAYMENT) 12,72,349 RAJESH CHOURASIA 1,51,55,6 75 1,51,22,019(ADDITION) 3,02 ,77,694 R.C DISTRIBUTORS 1,07,80,496 96,00,000(ADDITION) 2,03,60,496 RAKESH CHOURASIA 1,07,518 (FRESH) 1,07,518 FROM THE ABOVE TABLE IT WILL BE SEEN THAT ADDITIONAL LOANS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSE E DURING THE YEAR WAS RS. 2, 48,29,537/ - THROUGH BANK CHANNEL, AS PER LOAN CONFIRMATION FILED BEFORE THE AO AND ON RECORD . AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,10,308/ - HAS BEEN REPAID TO SRI PANNALAL CHOURASIA, THROUGH BANK CHANNEL. RESPECTIVE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS WERE ALL FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS ALONG WITH COPIES OF ALL BANK STATEMENTS OF LENDERS, TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, WHICH WERE ALL EXAMINED BY THE AO AS PER HIS WISDOM. 7. HOWEVER, THE LD. PR. CIT REJECTED THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE AS S ESS EE AND NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE ADVANCING OF SUCH HUGE AMOUNT OF LOAN . THEREFORE, LD PR.CIT HELD THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 03.12.2015 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER ESTS OF REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC TION 263 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY HE DIRECTED THE AO TO PASS ASSESSMENT ORDER AFRESH AFTER MAKING PROPER INQUIRIES AND NECESSARY INVESTIGATION . 5 ITA NO . 138/RAN/2018 SMT. MANJU DEVI CHOURASIA 8. AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT THE ASSESSE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 9. SHRI U. DAS GUPTA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED EACH AND EVERY DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF FIXED DEPOSIT AND T HE AO HAS DULY EXAMINED THE BANK STATEMENT AND CAME ON A CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS NO IRREGULARITY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH RELEVANT PAPER BOOK PAGES NOS. 22 - 24 REGARDING NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO , WHEREIN THE ASSESSE WAS ASKED TO F ILE THE DOCUMENTS AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE BEFORE THE AO . VIDE PAGE NO. 32 OF PAPER BOOK, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WITH SHRI RAJESH CHOURASIA, HAVE BEEN DULY CONFIRMED FROM M/ S R.K TRADERS AND THE TRANSACTION WAS DONE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL DOCUMENTS , AS ASKED BY THE AO AND T HE AO HA D DULY EXAMINED ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND CONFIRMATIONS AND THEN PASSED A REASONED ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT , ON 3 - 12 - 2015. THE LD PR.CIT DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND THEREFORE, ORDER PASSED BY THE PR.CIT MAY BE QUASHED. 10 . ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI INDERJIT SINGH, CIT/LD.DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT . THE LD DR STATED THAT LD PR.CIT HAS PASSED REASONED ORDER TREATING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 1 1 . WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT HON`BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) , HAS OBSERVED THAT A BARE READING OF S ECTION 263 OF THE IT ACT, 1961, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PREREQUISITE FOR THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE CIT SUO MOTU 6 ITA NO . 138/RAN/2018 SMT. MANJU DEVI CHOURASIA UNDER IT, IS THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE CIT HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE AO SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT IF THE ORDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE - RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO S ECTION 263(1) OF THE ACT. THE PROVISI ON CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE AO, IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQ UIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. IN THE SAME CATEGORY FALL ORDERS PASSED WITHOUT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF ART AND IS NO T DEFINED IN THE ACT. UNDERSTOOD IN ITS ORDINARY MEANING IT IS OF WIDE IMPORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO LOSS OF TAX. THE SCHEME OF THE ACT IS TO LEVY AND COLLECT TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THIS TASK IS ENTRUSTED TO THE REVENUE. IF DU E TO AN ERRONEOUS ORDER OF THE AO , THE REVENUE IS LOSING TAX LAWFULLY PAYABLE BY A PERSON, IT WILL CERTAINLY BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRO NEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE AO, CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN AO ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE AO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW . 12 . FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE SUPREME COURT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF 7 ITA NO . 138/RAN/2018 SMT. MANJU DEVI CHOURASIA MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE AO, IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED AND INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND THAT EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE AO CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IT WAS FURTHER EMPHATICALLY STATED THAT WHEN AN AO ADOPTS ONE O F THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE AO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 13 . COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE`S CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, W E NOTE THAT D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE AO EXAMINED ALL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BANK STATEMENTS, BILLS VOUCHERS, AND ALL OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AS PER HIS SATISFACTION (SEE PARA - 2 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER). DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT, 1961 DATED 8 TH MAY, 2015 AND AGAIN ON 9 TH JULY, 2015, WHERE THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES : (A). SOURCE AND DETAILS OF INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL WITH EVIDENCE (B). REASONS FOR INCREASE OF UNSECURED LOANS WITH EVIDENCE (C). ALL BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS FOR F.Y 2012 - 13 (RELEVANT T O THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR) (D). AUDIT REPORT AND BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2013 AND FOR EARLIER YEAR 31.03.2012. WE NOTE THAT A LL THE ABOVE NOTED REQUISITION OF THE AO AS PER REQUIREMENT WAS DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE E , VIDE LETTER DATED 29.07.2015. FROM T HE ABOVE DOCUMENTS, IT 8 ITA NO . 138/RAN/2018 SMT. MANJU DEVI CHOURASIA CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE AO H AS DULY APPLIED HIS MIND FOR VERIFICATION OF THE LOANS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSE FROM VARIOUS RELATIVES . THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE BANK STATEMENT AND LOAN CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE PARTIES TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE PARTIES. LOANS WERE TAKEN THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE BANK STATEMENT AND LOAN CONFIRMATION AN ADVERSE VIEW CAN NOT BE TAKEN THAT AO HAS FAILED TO PERFORM HIS DUTIES. WE NO TE THAT IF THE AO HAS PASSED A SHORT ORDER, WITHOUT MUCH DISCUSSION AND DETAIL REASONS, BUT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE RECORDS THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN APPLICATION OF MIND IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND THEREFORE, THE P OWERS U/S. 2 63 OF THE ACT , CANNOT BE INVOKED IN SUCH CASES. WE NOTE THAT T HE ASSESSE SMT. MANJU DEVI CHOURASIA IS THE SOLE PROPRIETOR OF THE CONCERN M/S. R.K TRADERS, ASANSOL, AND THE LOANS FROM RELATIVES HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE IN EARLIER YEARS ( AS REFLECTED IN BALANCE SHEET OF ASSTT. YEAR 2012 - 13 ). THERE HAS BEEN FURTHER ADDITION TO THE BROUGHT FORWARD BALANCE OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR . THESE FACTS WERE DULY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. WE NOTE THAT I N TH E ASSESSEE`S CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION SOME OF THE BALANCES OF LOANS WERE COMING FROM PREVIOUS YEARS AS A CARRY FORWARD BALANCE AND DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HENCE BY NO STRETCH OF LOGIC TH ESE AMOUNT S CAN BE TREATED AS UNE XPLAINED AMOUNT. IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR`S SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT THE SAID LOAN AMOUNTS MUST HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO THEREFORE ORDER OF THE AO CAN NOT BE TREATED ERRONEOUS. 14. APART FROM THIS, SO FAR THE CURRENT YEAR`S ADDITION IN THE LOAN ACCOUNT IS CONC ERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT AND IN RESPONSE TO SAID NOTICE THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES. THAT IS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED RELEVANT MATERIAL AND OFFERED EXPLANATION IN PURSUANCE OF THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER S ECTION 142(1) AS WELL AS S ECTION 143(2) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THOSE MATERIALS AND EXPLANATION, THE AO HAS COME TO A DEFINITE CONCLUSION. THE CIT DID NOT AGREE WITH THE 9 ITA NO . 138/RAN/2018 SMT. MANJU DEVI CHOURASIA CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE AO . THE SEC TION 263 OF THE ACT, DOES NOT EMPOWER PR CIT TO TAKE ACTION ON THESE FACTS TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. SINCE THE MATERIAL WAS THERE ON RECORD AND THE SAID MATERIAL WAS CONSIDE RED BY THE AO AND A PARTICULAR VIEW WAS TAKEN, THE MERE FACT THAT DIFFERENT VIEW CAN BE TAKEN, SHOULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR AN ACTION UNDER S ECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND IT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES SO FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BY DOING DETAILED SCRUTINY UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WERE NO ANY IRREGULARITY AND MISTAKE IN THESE DOCUMENTS. HENCE, IN THIS SCENARIO, IT CAN BE SAID THAT ORDER PASSED BY TH E AO UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 03.12.2015, IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WE ARE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ROLE WHILE FRAMING AN ASSESSMENT IS NOT ONLY AN ADJUDICATOR. THE AO HAS A DUAL ROLE TO DISPENSE WITH I.E. HE IS AN INVESTIGATOR AS WELL AS AN ADJUDICATOR; THEREFORE, IF HE FAILS IN ANY ONE OF THE ROLE AS AFORE - STATED, HIS ORDER WILL BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS. WE NOTE THAT IN TH E ASSESSEE`S CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AO HAD EXAMINED THE EACH AND EVERY DETAIL AND APPLIED HIS MIND VERY CAREFULLY IN RESPECT OF EVERY ISSUE EXPLAINED BY US IN THE ABOVE PARAS, THEREFORE, O N THIS FINDING OF FACT BY US, IN ABOVE NOTED PARA NOS.1 1 TO 14 OF THIS ORDER, WE CANNOT TERM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) DATED 03.12.2015 AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE . 15. IN ANY EVENT, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND EVEN IF IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS TO THE REVENUE, THE SAID DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). SINCE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRO NEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED ABOVE, THE USURPATION OF JURISDICTION EXERCISING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION BY THE PRINCIPAL CIT IS NULL IN THE EYES OF LAW AND, THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINE D TO QUASH THE VERY ASSUMPTION OF 10 ITA NO . 138/RAN/2018 SMT. MANJU DEVI CHOURASIA JURISDICTION TO INVOKE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIT. THEREFORE, WE QUASH THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL CIT DATED 22.03.2018 , BEING AB INITIO VOID. 1 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 - 0 2 - 2019 SD/ - SD/ - ( S. S. GODARA ) (DR. A.L.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 20 - 0 2 - 2019 *PRADIP (SR.PS) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT/ ASSESSEE: SMT. MANJU DEVI CHOURASIA, PROP: M/S. R.K. TRADERS, 37(34), GHANTY GOLI, DR. R.C. BANERJEE LANE, ASANSOL - 713301. 2 THE RESPONDENT/ DEPARTMENT: THE DY.C IT, CIRC LE - 2, AAYKAR BHAWAN, L.C ROAD, DHANDBAD - 826001. 3. THE CIT - , 4. THE CIT(A) - , 5. DR, RANCHI BENCHES, RANCHI TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR P.S ITAT, RANCHI BENCHES