Snehalatha Lunawat, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1440/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7943 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S V M PRASADCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNANC A
• Keywords: Revision of order; Depreciation; Tangible material; Condonation of delay; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 263; 63

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , ! , ' #$ % , & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1440 /MDS./2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10) SMT.SNEHALATHA LUNAWAT NO.10,SRI RAMASWAMY STREET, VEPERY, CHENNAI 600 007. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE RANGE-9, CHENNAI 600 034. PAN AABPL 4053 H ( () / APPELLANT ) ( %*() / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.B.RAMAKRISHNAN,C.A / RESPONDENT BY : MR.S.V.M.PRASAD,CIT, D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 17.02.2016 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.02.2016 + / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VII, CHENNAI DAT ED 25.06.2013 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1440 /MDS/2015 2 2. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A D ELAY OF 660 DAYS. IN THE PETITION FILED ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVI T, THE ASSESSEE PLEADS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER THAT SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE IMPLICATIO NS OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT GIVEN IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UN DER THE BONA FIDE IMPRESSION THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO DEMAND RAISED OF PASSING S.263 ORDER, THE PETITIONER NEED NOT FILE THE APPEAL. TH E APPEAL WAS FILED ONLY WHEN THE PETITIONER CAME TO KNOW THAT GIVING E FFECT TO THE S.263 ORDER WAS PASSED RAISING THE DEMAND. IT WAS THE CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD.A.R OF THE PETITIONER WAS ALS O NOT INTIMATED OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER BEING RECEIVED. LD.D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE INORDINATE DELAY WILL BE CONDON ED. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION IS AS FOLLOWS:- THE PETITIONER IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS IN APPEAL BE FORE THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX - 17 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE SAID ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS SERVED ON ITA NO.1440 /MDS/2015 3 THE PETITIONER ON 25.06.201 3, GIVING A DIRECTION T O THE AO TO PASS FRESH ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DENYING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONER ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THOUGH THE PETITIONER IS NOT IN ACCEPTANCE OF THE A BOVE DIRECTION FOR DENIAL OF EXEMPTION CLAIM, HE FAILED TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINS T THE SAID CIT ORDER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I) THE PETITIONER WAS NOT AWARE OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS OF CIT; II) SINCE THERE WAS NO DEMAND RAISED ON PASSING THE ABOVE ORDER, THE PETITIONER DID NOT BOTHER TO FILE AN OBJECTION REGARDING THE S AME. V III) THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PETITIONE R WAS ALSO NOT INTIMATED OF THE SAID ORDER BEING RECEIVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, PASSED THE ORDER U/S 143 (3) R.W.S 263 OF THE ACT DATED 26-O32OL 5 GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE COMMISSIONER IN HIS ORDER OF THE ACT AND DEMAND NOTICE WAS ALSO ISSUED AMOUNT ING TO RS. 954880/- ON THE SAME DATE. AT THIS STAGE, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PETITIONER WAS INFORMED ABOUT THE ABOVE CIT ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND GIVING E FFECT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 660 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE PETITIONER FOR THESE REASONS AND SUCH OTHER REA SONS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THIS PETITION PRAYS THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FILED ON 15/06/2015. ON PERUSAL OF THE PETITION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT AWARE OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT AND SHE WAS ALSO HAVING BONA FIDE IMPRESSION THAT THE APPEAL NE ED NOT BE FILED AND IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE LD.A.R OF THE PETIT IONER NOT INTIMATED THE SAID ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT BEING RECEIVED AND NOT ADVISED HER TO FILE AN APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THESE AVERMENTS, WE FIND THAT THERE IS REASONABLE C AUSE IN NOT FILING ITA NO.1440 /MDS/2015 4 THE APPEAL IN TIME AND THUS, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN HER APPEAL CHALLENGES THE ORDER OF CIT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 263 OF THE A CT AND DIRECTING THE AO TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT BY DENYING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF GAINS ARISING OUT OF SAL E OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITS THAT IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3 ) OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO TH E CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH E CERTIFICATE FROM VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (VAO) AND REVENUE IN SPECTOR, CHENGALPATU TALUK WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO STATIN G THAT THE LAND BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CHI TTA ADANGAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 RELATING TO THE AGRICULTURA L LAND WAS ALSO PRODUCED. ON EXAMINING ALL THESE DOCUMENTS AND THE DETAILS CALLED ITA NO.1440 /MDS/2015 5 FOR BY THE AO, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143 (3) OF THE ACT ACCEPTING THE CAPITAL GAINS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSE E ON AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT LA TER ON A REFERENCE MADE BY THE AO, ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE CIT U/S.263 HOLDING THAT THE LAND IS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND BASED ON THE I NFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE WEB SITE OF THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOV ERNMENT OF TAMILNADU THAT THE LAND HAS CLASSIFIED AS RESIDENTI AL CLASS. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED WITH THE DETAILS CALLED FO R AND EXAMINATION OF DETAILS FURNISHED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS NO ENQUIRY AT ALL BY THE AO. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD., REPORTED IN [2011] 332 ITR 167 SUBMITS THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS CA LLED FOR BY THE AO AND IF THERE IS INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BY THE AO, THOUG H THE CIT HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATER, IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. HE ALSO PLACED RELIA NCE ON THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEVELOP MENT CREDIT ITA NO.1440 /MDS/2015 6 BANK LTD. REPORTED IN 323 ITR 206 FOR THE SAME PROP OSITION. EVEN ON MERIT THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT TH E LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTU RAL LAND IN THE CHITTA ADANGAL AND REVENUE RECORDS, COCONUT TREES WERE GR OWN IN THE LAND AND THEREFORE, HE SUBMITS THAT THE LAND SOLD BY T HE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. LD.D.R SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT OR DER THAT WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, T HE AO CALLED FOR VARIOUS DETAILS; THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED; THE DOCUME NTS WERE PERUSED AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ACCEPTING THE GAINS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN FACT, THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DISCUSSED THE SAME AS UN DER:- THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS GETTING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. SHE HAS FILED HERE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 31.07.2009 AND ADMITTING AN INCOME OF RS.16,02,970/- THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) ON 17.3.2011. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED F OR SCRUTINY BY CASS AND THE NOTICE U/S.143(3) DATED 19.08.2010 WAS ISSUED TO TH E ASSESSEE AND POSTED THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 13.09.2010. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, MR.DEVENDRA KUMAR BHANDAR, FCA THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTATIVE HAS FILED DETAILS CALLED FOR. THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED FROM TIME TO TIME. THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ARE PERUSED. ITA NO.1440 /MDS/2015 7 2. AS PER THE AIR INFORMATION DURING THE F.Y 2008 -09, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ONE AGRICULTURAL LAND ALONG WITH THE FAMILY ME MBERS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.95,00,000/- ON WHICH THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE I S RS.24,00,000/-. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, ASSESSEE FURNISHED D OCUMENTS N RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD. THE DEPARTMENT ALSO GOT AIR INFORMATION ABOUT THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. T HE AO ON EXAMINATION ACCEPTED THE GAINS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. CIT PASSED U/S.263 HOLDING THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. 7. ALMOST AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS COME UP BEFORE T HIS TRIBUNAL FOR ADJUDICATION IN THE CASE OF M/S.TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT. LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 20 TH MARCH 2015 IN ITA NO.1424/MDS./2014 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS IN THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WERE CONSIDERED BY THE AO AND AC CEPTED THE CLAIMS OF ASSESSEE. THE CIT BY ORDER U/S.263 HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CO-ORDINATE BEN CH HELD AS FOLLOWS:- ITA NO.1440 /MDS/2015 8 6 . HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ISSUED LETTER DATED 30.11.2011 CALLING FOR INFORMATION / DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFYING ITS CLAIM OF DEPRECIAT ION ON COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON FREEHOLD LAND. THE ASSE SSEE FURNISHED ITS REPLY ON 15.12.2011 JUSTIFYING ITS CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION . THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT ON 30.12.2011 ALLOWING CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PASSED ORDER UNDER SECT ION 263 OF THE ACT DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LOOK INTO THE IS SUES AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS ACCORDING TO HIM THERE IS LACK OF ENQUI RY AND THEREFORE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30.12.20 11 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 7 . THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER:- THE SUBMISSION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE WAS THAT WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THE ASPECT SPECIFICALLY WHETHER THE EXPEND ITURE IN QUESTION WAS REVENUE OR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THIS ARGUMENT PREDICATES ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH APPARENTL Y DOES NOT GIVE ANY REASONS WHILE ALLOWING THE ENTIRE EXPENDIT URE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT BE INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE AO HAD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE ISSUE. THE AO IN THE ASSESSING ORDER IS NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE DETA ILED REASON IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF DEDUCTION, ETC. THEREFORE, ONE HAS TO SEE FROM THE RECORD AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND BEFORE ALL OWING THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS RIGHT IN HIS SUBMISSION THAT ONE HAS TO KEEP IN MIND THE. DISTINCTION BETWEEN 'LACK OF INQUIRY' AND 'INADEQUATE INQUIRY'. IF THERE WAS ANY INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE CIT TO PASS ORDERS UNDER S. 263, MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS DIFFERENT OPINION ITA NO.1440 /MDS/2015 9 IN THE MATTER. IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF 'LACK OF INQU IRY' THAT SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE OPEN. THE AO HAD CALLED FOR EXPLANATION ON THIS VERY ITEM FRO M THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED HIS EXPLANATION VIDE LETTER DT. 26TH SEPT., 2002. THIS FACT IS EVEN TAKEN NOTE OF BY THE CIT HIMSELF IN PARA 3 OF HIS ORDER. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AO HAD UNDERTAKEN THE EXERCISE OF EXAMINING AS TO WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REPLACEMENT OF DYES ARID TOOLS IS TO BE . TREATED A S REVENUE EXPENDITURE OR NOT. IT APPEARS THAT SINCE THE AO WA S SATISFIED- WITH THE AFORESAID EXPLANATION, HE ACCEPTED THE SAME. THE CIT IN HIS I MPUGNED ORDER EVEN ACCEPTS THIS. THUS, EVEN THE CIT CONCEDED THE. POSITION THAT THE AO MADE THE INQUIRIES, ELICITED REPLIES AND THEREAFTER- PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE CIT WAS THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE MADE FURTHER INQUIRIES RATHER THAN ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION. TH EREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS A CASE OF 'LACK OF INQUIRY'.-CIT VS. GABRIAL INDIA LTD. (1993) 114 CTR (BOM) 81 (1993) 203 ITR 108 (BOM) RELIED ON. 8 . THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER:- A READING ,OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT WOULD SH OW THAT THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTION WHICH THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY EXPRESSED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS AN ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE; FIRSTLY WHETHER THE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 1. 26 CRORES HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TRANSACTIONS RELATIN G TO INVESTMENTS 'HELD TO MATURITY', AND SECONDLY WHETHE R THE DEPRECIATION OF RS. 622.39 LAKHS WAS CLAIMED ON INV ESTMENTS WHICH WERE HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. NOW FROM THE , M ATERIAL ON RECORD BEFORE THE COURT IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSE SSEE, IN RESPONSE TO A SPECIFIC QUERY ' OF THE AO DT. 20TH SEPT., 2004 SUPPLIED DETAILS OF THE LONG-TERM INVESTMENTS HELD FOR A PERIOD IN EXCESS OF ONE YEAR WHICH THE ASSESSEE TREATED AS INVESTMENTS HELD TO MATURITY. THE PROFIT ON THESE INVESTMENTS WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 1.26 CRORES. IN SO FAR AS THE ASPECT OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 622.39 LAKHS ON INVESTMENTS HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE WAS CON CERNED, THE ITA NO.1440 /MDS/2015 10 ASSESSEE HAD SIMILARLY SUPPLIED TO THE A'O DETAILS OF THE CURRENT INVESTMENTS IN RESPO NSE TO THE QUERY OF THE AO. IN ADDITION, IT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE NOTED THAT, IN PURSUANCE OF, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT UNDER S. 263, AN ASSESSMENT ORDER CAME TO BE PASSED ON 28TH DEC., 20 07. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO N OTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED DEPRECIATION CLAIMED AGA INST THE INVESTMENTS HELD AND CLASSIFIED AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CONNECTION WAS ACCEPTED AND THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT DEPRECIATION OF RS. 622.39 LAKHS HAS BEEN. CLAIMED TOWARDS INVESTMENTS HELD AND CLASSIFIED AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO THE CONTRARY, THE CIT COULD NOT HAVE TR EATED THIS FINDING TO BE ERRONEOUS-OR 'TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT THAT THE AO HAD ARRIVED AT HIS. FINDING WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN ENQUIRY WAS E RRONEOUS, SINCE AN ENQUIRY WAS SPECIFICALLY HELD WITH REFEREN CE TO WHICH A DISCLOSURE OF DETAILS WAS CALLED FOR BY THE AO AND MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT RECOURSE TO THE POWERS UNDER S. 263 WAS NOT WARRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. .: IN CONCLUSION, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT SIN CE AN ENQUIRY WAS SPECIFICALLY HELD WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH A DISCLOSURE OF DETAIL S WAS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE OBS ERVATION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ARRIVED AT HIS FINDING WITHOUT CONDUCTING ENQUIRY WAS ERRONEOUS AND THEREF ORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WRONGLY EXERCISED POWERS UNDER SECTION 2 63 OF THE ACT . 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND ALSO, THE DETAILS CA LLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D SUCH DETAILS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS A LACK OF ENQUIRY. THE RE WAS AN ENQUIRY, ITA NO.1440 /MDS/2015 11 THOUGH IT IS INADEQUATE AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LAC KS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT TO REVISE THE ASSESSME NT ORDER. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISIONS, WE SET A SIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ALLOW T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 19 TH OF FEBRUARY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ( ' #$ % ) ((CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 19 TH FEBRUARY,2016 . K S SUNDARAM. '#$$ %&$'& /COPY TO: $ 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. $ ($)* /CIT(A) 4. $ ( /CIT 5. &+,$ - /DR 6. ,.$/ /GF