NIRMALA DEVI CHORDIA, Jaipur V. CIT-1, Jaipur

ITA 150/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 15023114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROLEE AGARWAL CIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Capital asset; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 133(6); 148; 263; 63

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 150/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SMT. NIRMALA DEVI CHORDIA 1631, SONTHIWALON KA RASTA, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE CIT JAIPUR 1 JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ABLPC 1432 A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SIDDHARTH RANKA, ADVOCATE. JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. ROLEE AGARWAL, CIT - DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 14/05/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 /05/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL CHALLENGING THE V ALIDITY OF REVISION ORDER PASSED U/S 263 DATED 30-01-2015 PASSED BY CIT , JAIPUR 1. SOLE GROUND THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ASSAILED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 147/148 HAS BEEN WRONGLY SET ASIDE BY LD. CIT HOLDING IT TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 2.1 ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE AO GO T INFORMATION THAT ITA NO. 150/JP/2015 SMT. NIRMALA DEVI CHORDIA VS. CIT -1, JAIPUR 2 THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED RS. 68.00 LACS IN NABARD BONDS. AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 BY RECORDING THE REASONS THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND NABARD INVESTMENT OF RS.68.00 LACS WAS TO BE VERIFIED. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN OBJECTION DATED 11- 04-2013 POINTING OUT THAT RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICE U/ S 148 WAS THUS INVALID BEING ISSUED ON WRONG RECORDING OF REASONS. HOWEVER , TO REMAIN ON SAFE SIDE, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED TO CONSIDER HER ORIGIN AL RETURN AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE ORIGINA L RETURN WAS FILED ALONG WITH PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET, CAPITA L ACCOUNT, DETAILS OF SHARES SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AND COMPUTATION OF INCO ME WITH DETAILED ANNEXURE OF DISCLOSURE ABOUT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN S. IN SUMS AND SUBSTANCE, ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE FILED ALL THE RE LEVANT DETAILS IN RETURN AS WELL AS BEFORE THE AO IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 15-03-2014 A ND THE CLAIM OF LTCG ALONG WITH PARTICULARS OF RETURNED INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE WERE ACCEPTED BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS. ON 03-09-2013, NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED. IN R ESPONSE SHRI N.K. BAID, ADVOCATE AND A/R ATTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS. TO VERIFY THE SO URCE OF THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN THE BONDS OF NABARD, LETTERS U/S 133(6) WAS ALSO ISSUED TO THE COMPANIES WHOSE SHARES WERE TRAN SFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 67,99,500/-. TH E REPLY VERIFYING THE TRANSACTION WAS RECEIVED ON 11-02-2014 AND NOTH ING ADVERSE WAS FOUND. THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED AND AFTER DISCUSS ION, THE ITA NO. 150/JP/2015 SMT. NIRMALA DEVI CHORDIA VS. CIT -1, JAIPUR 3 RETURNED INCOME AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 11,31,647/- IS ACCEPTED. 2.2 THE LD. CIT- JAIPUR 1, CALLED FOR THE RECORD AN D ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT ALLEGING THAT REASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AS NO EV IDENCE OF SALE/ TRANSFER OF SHARES WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SALE WA S ACCEPTED BY THE AO WITHOUT PROPER ENQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATION. NO ENQU IRIES WERE MADE AT THE END OF SHRI N.K. GUPTA, PURCHASER OF THE SHARES, TO VERIFY HIS IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTIO N U/S 54EC OF THE ACT WHICH IS ALLOWABLE AGAINST LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN H OWEVER ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE DATE OF ACQUISITION SO AS TO HOLD A VIEW THAT THE GAINS WERE LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN. 2.3 IN REPLY TO 263 NOTICE, ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION DULY SUPPORTED BY A PLETHORA OF CASE LAWS AND ALONG WITH COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS DEMONSTRATED THAT MOST OF THE INFORMATION AND PAPERS WERE ALREADY FILED ALONG WIT H RETURN WHICH LD. AO BY AN ERROR HAS HELD TO BE NOT FILED. DURING THE CO URSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO ALL THE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES WERE M ADE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM AOS OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED TH E PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED REQUISITE DOCUMENTS. TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF AMOUNT FOR INVESTMENT IN BONDS LETTERS U/S 133(6) W ERE ISSUED TO ITA NO. 150/JP/2015 SMT. NIRMALA DEVI CHORDIA VS. CIT -1, JAIPUR 4 COMPANIES WHOSE SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED TO ASSESSEE WHICH WERE DULY COMPLIED WITH CONFIRMING ASSESSEE'S VERSION. THUS I N REASSESSMENT ASSESSEE'S CLAIM ABOUT LTCG, NABARD BONDS AND INCOM E WERE ACCEPTED BY LD. AO AFTER DUE DISCUSSIONS, INQUIRIES AND VERIFICATION AND ACCEPTING. TO SATISFY LD. CIT, THE ASSESSEE FURNISH ED SOME MORE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE POINTED OUT BY HIM. 2.4 THE LD. CIT HOWEVER, CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES T OF REVENUE AND SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO FRAME THE SAME AFRESH AFTER MAKING PROPER ENQUIRIES BY FOLLOWING OBSERVAT ION. 4.. IT IS EVIDENT FROM RECORDS AS WELL AS ADMIS SION OF THE A/R DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSMEN T WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT REQUIRED ENQUIRIES AND INVESTIGAT ION. AO OUGHT TO HAVE VERIFIED THE DATE & COST OF ACQUISITI ON OF THE SHARES SOLD TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE ASSETS SOLD WE RE SHORT TERM OR LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSETS AND WHETHER ASSESS EE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. AO SHO ULD HAVE ALSO ENQUIRED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF SALE PRICE S HOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER EXAMINING THE FINANCIAL POSITION AND PROFITS OF COMPANIES WHOSE SHARES WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SHOULD HAVE ALSO ENQUIRED ABOUT THE CREDITWORTHI NESS OF SHRI N.K. GUPTA, THE PURCHASER OF SHARES FOR RS. 67 ,99,500/- SINCE THE TRANSACTION WAS OF UNLISTED EQUITY SHARES AND WAS OFF MARKET TRANSACTION. IT IS A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT FAILURE TO MAK E PROPER ENQUIRIES BY AO, WILL MAKE THE ASSESSMENT OR DER ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WHICH CAN BE REVISED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IT IS HELD BY THE COURTS IN VARIOUS DECISIONS THAT UNLIKE THE CIVIL C OURT WHICH ITA NO. 150/JP/2015 SMT. NIRMALA DEVI CHORDIA VS. CIT -1, JAIPUR 5 IS NEUTRAL TO GIVE A DECISION ON THE BASIS OF EVIDE NCE PRODUCED BEFORE IT, AN ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ONL Y AN ADJUDICATOR BUT IS ALSO AN INVESTIGATOR. HE CAN NOT REMAIN PASSIVE ON THE FACE OF A RETURN WHICH IS APPARENTLY IN ORDER BUT CALLS FOR FURTHER ENQUIRY. IT IS HIS DUTY TO AS CERTAIN THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN THE CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE SUCH AS TO PROVOKE ENQUIRY. IF THER E IS A FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH ENQUIRY, ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AN D PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- (I) RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI VS. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 (II) MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT (SC) 243 ITR 83 (III) SWARUP VEGETABLE PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT (ALL.) 187 ITR 412. (IV) GEE VEE ENTERPRISES VS. ADDL. CIT & ORS (DEL.) 99 ITR 375. (V) RAJALAKSHMI MILLS LTD. VS. ITO (ITAT, SB-CHENNA I) 121 ITD 343; 313 ITR (AT) 182 (VI) SRM SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE (P) LTD. VS. ACIT 2010- TIOL-646-HC-MAD-IT 5. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, AS DISCUSSED ABOV E, I HOLD THAT THE REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15-03-2014 F OR A.Y. 2006-07, WAS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IN TERMS OF SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT. I THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE MAD E AFRESH AFTER MAKING PROPER ENQUIRIES ON THE ISSUES DISCUSS ED ABOVE. AO SHOULD ALLOW REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING T O THE ASSESSEE. 2.5 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 2.6 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI SIDDHARTH RANKA, ADVOCATE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THE LD. CIT ORDER ITA NO. 150/JP/2015 SMT. NIRMALA DEVI CHORDIA VS. CIT -1, JAIPUR 6 DATED 30-01-2015 ARE DEVOID OF ANY MERITS AND UNJUS TIFIED AS THEY DO NOT CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 INASMUCH A S:- (I) 148 ASSESSMENT ITSELF WAS BASED ON WRONG REASO NS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME WHEREAS THE SAME WAS ALREADY ON THE RECORD OF THE AO. IT SHOWS THAT THE DEPARTM ENT BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DID NOT BOTHER TO VERIFY A VERY CRUCIAL FACT, THIS CAUSED UNDUE HARASSMENT OF A LADY. (II) IN 148 PROCEEDINGS, ALL THE DUE COMPLIANCE WA S MADE AS ASKED BY THE AO WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE HOST OF I NFORMATION AND COPIES OF ACCOUNTS FILED ALONG WITH ORIGINAL RETURN. (III) THE DATA ABOUT PURCHASE OF SHARES WAS ON REC ORD AS EVIDENT FROM THE STATEMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS AND CAPITAL ACC OUNTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN TURN IS FURTHER VERIFIABLE FROM E ARLIER RETURNS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED ALL THE RELEVANT STATEMENT I.E. PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, CAPITAL ACC OUNT, BALANCE SHEET AND HAS FILED ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS ASKED FOR BY LD. AO. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN PASS ED AFTER DUE VERIFICATION, ENQUIRIES INCLUDING ISSUANCE OF STATU TORY LETTERS U/S 133(6) ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION OF DETAILS WITH A CLEAR FIN DING OF LD. AO THAT NO ADVERSE MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN THIS BEHALF. (IV) THE GAINS WERE LONG TERM IN NATURE WHICH IS C LEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE DATES OF ACQUISITION MANIFEST FROM THE REC ORD ITSELF I.E. FROM COMPUTATION OF INCOME, STATEMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN AN D PAST RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE. (V) LD. CIT MAY HOLD A PARTICULAR VIEW ABOUT THE M ANNER IN WHICH THE ENQUIRIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY A O HOWEVER SUCH ITA NO. 150/JP/2015 SMT. NIRMALA DEVI CHORDIA VS. CIT -1, JAIPUR 7 VIEW CANNOT MAKE AOS INQUIRIES AS IMPROPER SINCE CL EAR MENTION OF INQUIRIES AND FINDING THEREON IS CRISPLY MENTIONED IN THE ORDER. (VI) THE REVISION POWER MAY BE RECOURSE IN CASE OF LACK OF INQUIRY BUT NOT FOR CHANGE OF PERCEPTION ABOUT THE MANNER OF ENQUIRY. IF THE AOS ORDER AND RECORD REFLECTS THAT REASONABLE INQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED , THE ORDER CANNOT BE HELD AS ERRONEOUS A ND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE MERELY BECAUSE LD. CIT HOLDS AN OTHER PLAUSIBLE VIEW ABOUT THE MANNER OF INQUIRY. RELIANCE IS PLACED AS UNDER:- (1) MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT , 243 ITR 83 (S C) (2) CIT VS. MAX. INDIA LTD., 295 ITR 282 (SC) THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN FOLLOWING CASE HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT JURISDICTION U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED FOR MAKING R OVING ENQUIRIES OR TO GO INTO THE PROCESS OF ASSESSMENT AGAIN AND AGAIN M ERELY ON THE BASIS THAT MORE ENQUIRY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED TO FIND S OMETHING. (1) CIT VS. GANPAT RAM BISHNOI, 296 ITR 292(RAJ.) (2) CIT VS. JAIN CONSTRUCTION CO., 257 ITR336 (RAJA .) (3) JEEWANRAM CHOUDHARY VS. CIT,153 TTJ 195(JODHPUR ) FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED BY THE LD. AR IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LTD. , 203 ITR 108 (BOM) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT HELD AS UNDER: THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO STARTING FISHING AND ROVING ENQUIRIES IN THE MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED. THE POWER U/S 2 63 CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND DUE TO THIS, PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE INTERESTS OF THE R EVENUE. THE ORDER CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISS IONER BECAUSE ACCORDING TO HIM THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT WHEN ITO HAS E XERCISE THE QUASI JUDICIAL POWER VESTED IN HIM IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE LAW AND ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION, SUCH A CONCLUSION CANNOT B E TERMED TO BE ITA NO. 150/JP/2015 SMT. NIRMALA DEVI CHORDIA VS. CIT -1, JAIPUR 8 ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT FEEL SATISFIED WITH THE CONCLUSION. THE COURT HELD THAT IN ORDER T O EXERCISE POWER U/S 263, THE ORDER MUST BE PRESENTED IN MATERIAL BE FORE THE CIT AND IF THAT ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE OF HON 'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUN BEAM AUTO LTD. (20 11) 332 ITR 167 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE BENCH OBSERVED AS UNDER:- IF THERE IS SOME ENQUIRY BY THE AO IN THE ORIGINA L PROCEEDINGS EVEN IF INADEQUATE THAT CANNOT BE CLOTH E THE COMMISSIONER WITH JURISDICTION U/S 263 MERELY BECAU SE HE CAN FORM ANOTHER OPINION. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS RIGHT IN HIS SUBMIS SION THAT ONE HAS TO KEEP IN MIND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LACK OF ENQUIRY AND INADEQUATE ENQUIRY. IF THERE WAS AN Y INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION T O THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT, MER ELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER. IT IS ONLY I N CASES OF LACK OF ENQUIRY. 2.7 ALTERNATIVELY IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT HON' BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIKAS POLYMERS (2010) 194 TA XMAN 57 HELD THAT IF THE LD. CIT IS OF THE VIEW THAT SUFFICIENT ENQUIRIE S WERE NOT CONSIDERED ASSESSEE PRODUCES FURTHER DOCUMENTS BEFORE LD. CIT TO MEET HIS DESIRE FOR FURTHER INQUIRIES, IN SUCH CASE LD. CIT HAS DUTY TO VERIFY THOSE DOCUMENTS AND COME TO CONCLUSION. IT IS PLEADED THAT ASSESSE E SUBMITTED COPIOUS DOCUMENTS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ON EACH AND EVERY SUSPI CION RAISED. 2.8 THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED DECISION OF ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. MOTISONS JEWELLERS VS. C IT (ITA NO. ITA NO. 150/JP/2015 SMT. NIRMALA DEVI CHORDIA VS. CIT -1, JAIPUR 9 280/JP/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DATED 19-02-2015) GIVING REFERENCE OF PARA 2.17 OF ITS ORDER AS UNDER:- 2.17 APROPOS THE INFLATED PROFITS AND EXPENDITURE , THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT SEPARAT E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR SEZ UNIT ARE MAINTAINED ALONG WITH PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT , EXPENSES VOUCHERS ETC. THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY THE AO, LD. CIT HAS NO T CONSIDERED UPHOLDING OF THE ACCOUNTS BY AO TO BE AN ERROR. THI S LEADS TO A VERY VAGUE SITUATION WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE ARE UPHELD AND NOT CHALLENGED AT THE SAME TIME ALLEGATI ONS ARE RAISED ABOUT CONTENTS THEREOF. THE LD. CIT WHILE PASSING T HE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAS NOT REFERRED TO ANY OTHER MISTAKE. I N CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE OR DER PASSED BY THE AO IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE REST OF REVENUE. WE MAY ADD THAT HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS ES OF CIT VS. SUNBEAM AUTO AND CIT VS. DLF (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT REVISION PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE INITIATED TO MAKE ROVING ENQU IRIES. THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED PROFORMA OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER IN IT ACT WHICH PRESCRIBED HOW THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD BE PASSE D. THUS THE CONTENTS OF THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DEPEND ON THE DISCRETION OF QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY I.E. AO. THE ORDER DOES NOT BECOME ERRONEOUS AS LONG AS RECORD REFLECTS THAT RE LEVANT ENQUIRIES WERE MADE. THEREFORE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE D RAWN IN THIS BEHALF AS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE CONDUCTING OF RELEVANT ENQUIRIES AND COMPLIANCE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. VIKAS POLYMERS (2010) 236 CTR 476 HELD THAT IF THE CIT IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SOME DOCUMENTS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN PLA CED ON RECORD BY THE AO. WHICH ARE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E CIT, IN THAT CASE THE LD. CIT HIMSELF SHOULD DECIDE THE MATTER O N THE MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE. IN THIS CASE IF IN THE PERCEPTION OF LD CIT SOME DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PLACED ON RECORD THEY WERE FORTH WITH SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, NO CASE IS MADE OUT FOR SETTING THE ASSESSMENT TO FRAME THE SAME DENOVO. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS NO CONTROL OVER AO AS TO WHAT COPIES SHOULD BE PLACED ON RECORD OR IN WHICH MANNE R ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD BE PASSED. OUR VIEWS ARE FORTIFIED BY DECISIONS OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. MAX INDI A LTD. (2007) 295 ITR 282 AND M/S. MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS . CIT (2000) ITA NO. 150/JP/2015 SMT. NIRMALA DEVI CHORDIA VS. CIT -1, JAIPUR 10 243 ITR 83 (SC) AND OTHER HON'BLE HIGH COURT JUDGEM ENTS. THUS IN VIEW OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER I S NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E WHICH IS UPHELD. HENCE, ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY L D. CIT IS QUASHED. IT IS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT THE NOTICE AND 263 O RDER ARE UNTENABLE AND BAD IN LAW, BESIDES SERIES OF EVENTS INDICATE THE H ARASSMENT FACED BY A LEADY ASSESSEE. 2.9 LD. DR MS. ROLEE AGRAWAL SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT AND CONTENDS THAT VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE LD. CIT WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT ADEQUATE INQUIRIES WERE MADE BY AO. THUS SUBST ANTIAL RELIEF HAS BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION, IN THESE CI RCUMSTANCES LD. CIT IN EXERCISE OF HIS STATUTORY POWER WAS JUSTIFIED IN SE TTING ASIDE THE REASSESSMENT. 2.10 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REJOINDER CONTENDS THAT ORIGINAL RECORDS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO AND THE ENQUIR IES CONDUCTED BY THE AO WERE SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PROPER DISCLOSURE OF THE FACTS ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . THE CRISPS RECITALS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DEMONSTRATE THAT THE AO HAS UNDERTAKEN PROPER ENQUIRIES, VERIFICATION AND APPLIED HER MIND BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. BESIDES THE LD. CIT CANNOT SHY AWAY FROM VERIFYING THE DOCUMENTS ITA NO. 150/JP/2015 SMT. NIRMALA DEVI CHORDIA VS. CIT -1, JAIPUR 11 FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIS QUERIES. THIS AMO UNTS TO ABDICATION FROM STATUTORY OBLIGATION AS HELD BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN VIKAS POLYMERS (SUPRA) 2.11 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DESPITE THAT SHE HAS BE EN WRONGLY ACCUSED OF NOT FILING THE SAME; THIS SUBJECTED THE ASSESSEE TO RIGOR OF AVOIDABLE 148 PROCEEDINGS. THE RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS FILED DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DID NOT IN ANY MANNER INDICA TE THAT PROPER ENQUIRIES AND VERIFICATION WERE NOT CONDUCTED. THE ORDER OF THE AO THOUGH SHORT YET CRISP AND CLEAR IN ARRIVING AT PR OPER FINDINGS REFLECTING REASONABLE DISCHARGE OF ASSESSMENT WHICH CANNOT BE HELD AS ERRONEOUS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. AR IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUN BEAM AUTO LTD. (DELH), MALABAR INDUSTRIAL C O. LTD. VS. CIT (SC) AND CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) SUPPORT ASSESSEE S CONTENTIONS. WE ARE OF VIEW THAT 263 PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE INVOKED WHERE REASONABLE INQUIRIES ARE CONDUCTED WITH APPLICATION OF MIND; T HERE IS CONSPICUOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CASES OF LACK OF ENQUIRY AND PERCEPTION ABOUT THE LEVEL OF ENQUIRY. IN THIS CASE IT EMERGES THAT LD. CIT CARRIED A DIFFERENT PERCEPTION ABOUT THE MANNER OF ENQUIRY WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE AO; HOWEVER IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 150/JP/2015 SMT. NIRMALA DEVI CHORDIA VS. CIT -1, JAIPUR 12 ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND THEREBY PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF REVENUE. THE PLETHORA OF CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT SUPPORT SUCH TYPE OF EXERCISE OF POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HENCE 263 OR DER HOLDING THE AOS ORDER AS ERRONEOUS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED MERELY BECAU SE THE LD. CIT HOLDS DIFFERENT PLAUSIBLE VIEW ABOUT MANNER OF INQUIRY. CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE LD. CIT WHICH IS QUASHED. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 /05 /2015. SD/- SD/- VH-VKJ-EHUK VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (T.R. MEENA) (R.P.TOLANI) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 29 /05/ 2015 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. NIRMLA DEVI CHORDIA, JAIPUR 2. VK;DJ VK;QDR CIT-1, JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 5. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.150/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR