M/s Akanksha Viniyog Ltd., V. C.I.T. I, Kolkata

ITA 1713/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4453 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIRAJ KUMAR
• Keywords: Business income; Revision of order; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Transactions in derivatives; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB; 147; 263

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 1713/KOL/2013 AKANKSHA VINIYOG LTD. AY 2006-07 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI S. S. VISWAN ETHRA RAVI, JM] I.T.A NO. 1713/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 AKANKSHA VINIYOG LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX-1, KOLKATA (PAN: AACCA8186C) ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 11.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.07.2016 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCA TE FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI NIRAJ KUMAR, CIT, SR. DR ORDER PER SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM: THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF REVISION ORDER OF CIT-1, KOLKATA VIDE DATED 28.03.2013. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA U/S. 147/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) FOR AY 2006-07 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30.11.2011. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD CIT IS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE AC T IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE ASST YEAR 2006-07 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 15.11.2006 DECLARING TOTA L INCOME OF RS. 65,831/- AFTER ADJUSTING BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS AND DEPRECIATION LOSS OF R S. 1,42,209/- UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND DECLARING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT OF RS. 4,52,412/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 3.7.2008 DETERMI NING THE TOTAL INCOME 66,672/- UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AFTER MAKING DISALLOWA NCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT IN THE SUM OF RS. 841/- AND DETERMINING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT AT RS. 4,53,253/-. IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD AO ON PERUSAL OF PRO FIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT INCLUDING ITS SCHEDULES, DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE DETAIL S OF OTHER INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE 2 ITA NO. 1713/KOL/2013 AKANKSHA VINIYOG LTD. AY 2006-07 DETAILS STATING THAT OTHER INCOME COMPRISES OF DIVI DEND INCOME OF RS. 82,876/- , PROFIT ON SALE OF UNITS OF MUTUAL FUND OF RS. 1,40,176/- AND PROFI T ON SALE OF DERIVATIVES OF RS. 16,950/- THROUGH PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SCHEME (PMS) OF PRUDEN TIAL ICICI ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED. IT WAS ALSO STATED BY THE ASSESSE E THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE OTHER INCOME EARNED THROUGH PMS OTHER THAN DIVIDEND INCOM E, UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THIS PLEA OF BUSINESS INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 3.7.2008. LATE R THIS ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS :- IT CAME TO LIGHT THAT CLAIM OF ASSESSEE ON INSURANC E AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,28,780/- IS APPARENTLY INELIGIBLE AND A CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS AL SO NOT ALLOWABLE AS THERE WAS NO BUSINESS DURING THAT YEAR. IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD AO OBSERVE D THAT KEYMAN INSURANCE PREMIUM IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 762 DATED 18.2.1998. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION, HE OBSERVED THAT THE SAME WAS CLAIMED ON ASSETS SUCH AS AIR-CONDITIONER, FURNITURE, ELECTRICAL FITTING ETC ALONG WITH A CAR. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE USED THE CAR FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AS WELL AS IN CONNECTION WITH NEW BUSINESS VENTURE. HOWEVER, THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM IS NOT FULLY SUBSTANTIATED THAT THE CAR WAS ENTIRELY USED FOR BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGLY MADE PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPR ECIATION OF RS. 80,192/- AND COMPLETED THE REASSESSMENT U/S 147 / 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30.11.2 011. 4. THE LD CIT ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 22.3 .2013 SEEKING TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 147/143(3) OF THE ACT IN AS MUCH AS THE LD AO HAD GRANTED DEDUCTION TOWARDS KEYMAN INSURANCE OF RS. 2,28,780/- AND ALLOWED DEPR ECIATION ON ASSETS AS USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES IN THE SUM OF RS. 59,228/- INSTEAD OF DISA LLOWING THE SAME, WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE LD CIT ARE NOT ALLOWABLE FOR WANT OF BUSINESS B EING CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED BEFORE THE LD CIT THAT IT IS PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES, MUTUAL FUNDS AND DER IVATIVES AND DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005- 06 RELEVANT TO ASST YEAR 2006-07, IT HAD EARNED PRO FIT ON SALE OF UNITS OF MUTUAL FUND OF RS. 1,40,176/- AND PROFIT ON SALE OF DERIVATIVES OF RS. 16,950/- THROUGH PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SCHEME (PMS) OF PRUDENTIAL ICICI ASSET MANAGEMENT C OMPANY LIMITED WHICH ARE PURELY 3 ITA NO. 1713/KOL/2013 AKANKSHA VINIYOG LTD. AY 2006-07 BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED AS SUC H IN THE ORIGINAL 143(3) PROCEEDINGS BY THE LD AO. EVEN IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE LD AO SOUGHT TO ONLY DISALLOW PROPORTIONATE DEPRECIATION ON CAR AS USED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES A LSO. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE LD AO HAD COMPLETELY APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD INDEED CARRIED ON BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THAT IS WHY HE HAD ASSESSED THE PR OFIT ON SALE OF UNITS OF MUTUAL FUND AND PROFIT ON SALE OF DERIVATIVES AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAD ALSO GRANTED DEDUCTION TOWARDS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE TOWARDS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS. 8,80,065/- COMPRISING OF SALARIES & BONUS, STAFF REFRESHMENT EXPENSES, BANK CHARGES& COMMISSION, INTEREST PAID TO BANK, TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE , PRINTING AND STATIONERY, REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, BUILDING REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, POSTAGE & STAM PS, RENT, AUDITORS REMUNERATION, CAR RUNNING & MAINTENANCE, STOCK EXCHANGE ANNUAL FEES, TRADE LICENCE & PROFESSION TAX, LEGAL EXPENSES, LICENCE & FEES, FILING FEES, INSURANCE, R ATES & TAXES, ELECTRICITY & WATER, BOOKS & PERIODICALS, CONSULTANCY FEES AND SECURITIES TRANSA CTION TAX , APART FROM ACCEPTING THE CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES MADE VOLUNTARILY BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME AS PER LAW. THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E FACTS STATED HEREINABOVE REMAIN UNDISPUTED AND HENCE THE SAME ARE NOT REITERATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. WE FIND THAT THE LD CIT SOUGHT TO DISALLOW ONLY THE INSURANCE PREMIUM OF RS. 2,28,780 /- AND REMAINING DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS IN THE SUM OF RS. 59,228/-. WE FIND THAT HE DID NOT BOTHER TO DISTURB EITHER THE BUSINESS INCOME IN THE FORM OF PROFIT ON SALE OF MUTUAL FUNDS AND D ERIVATIVES TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAINS. SIMILARLY WE FIND THAT THE LD CIT DID NOT BOTHER TO DISTURB THE GRANT OF DEDUCTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AS DETAILED SUPRA OTHER THA N KEYMAN INSURANCE PREMIUM AND DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS. WE FIND THAT THE LD CIT H IMSELF HAD PARTIALLY ALLOWED CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES DETAILED SUPRA TO BE BUSINE SS EXPENDITURE AND HAVING DONE SO, IT WOULD BE IMPROPER ON HIS PART TO TREAT KEYMAN INSURANCE P REMIUM AND DEPRECIATION ALONE AS NOT MEANT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. WE ALSO FIND FROM THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE LD AO HAD MENTIONED THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE TRADING IN SHARES / UNITS & LOAN ADVANCING. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND IT WOULD BE IMPROPER ON THE PART OF THE LD 4 ITA NO. 1713/KOL/2013 AKANKSHA VINIYOG LTD. AY 2006-07 CIT TO HOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD AO TO BE ERR ONEOUS WARRANTING REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REV ENUE THAT THE PROFIT ON SALE OF MUTUAL FUNDS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. SIMILARLY IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE TO TREAT THE PROFIT ON SALE OF DERIVATIVES SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IT IS ALREADY WELL SETTLED THAT TRANSACTIONS IN DERIVATIVES WOULD ALWAYS BE CONSTRUED ONLY AS BUSINESS TRANSACT IONS AS THE SAME ACTIVITIES ARE CARRIED OUT WITHOUT TAKING DELIVERY OF THE INSTRUMENTS. EVEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43(5)(D) OF THE ACT HAD CONSTRUED THE TRANSACTIONS IN DERIVATIVES TO BE REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS ONLY. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PROFIT DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF UNITS OF MUTUAL FUNDS WERE EARNED UNDER PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SCHEME WITH THE ASSISTAN CE OF PRUDENTIAL ICICI ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD WHO ALSO DO PMS SERVICE BY E NGAGING IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENTS. THE LD AR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE PROFIT DERIVED FROM SALE OF UNITS OF MUTUAL FUN D THROUGH PMS IS ONLY BUSINESS INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CONSIDERED AS SUCH BY THE LD AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THERE WAS NO ERROR COM MITTED BY THE LD AO THEREON. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD AR ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S RADIALS INTERNATI ONAL VS ACIT IN ITA NO. 1368 (DEL) OF 2010 FOR ASST YEAR 2006-07 DATED 16.12.2011 IS VERY WELL FOUNDED, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT :- 13. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT UNDER PMS. T HE PROFIT HAS NOT ARISEN DIRECTLY FROM DEPOSITS MADE, BUT FROM THE SECURITIES PURCHAS ED FROM SUCH DEPOSITS, WHICH WERE TRADED BY THE PORTFOLIO MANAGER ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE QUANTITY OF SHARE TRADED IS HUGE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE LIST APPENDED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE SHARES HAVE BEEN TRADED FREQUENTLY WITH A MOTIVE TO MAXIMIZE PROFIT AND NOT WITH A VIEW TO HOLD THEM AS INVESTMENT. THE VOLUME OF THE TRANSACTION IS VERY HIGH. ALL THE SE FACTS INDICATE THAT THE PORTFOLIO MANAGER HAD IN FACT DONE TRADING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY AN INDIVIDUAL IN SHARES AND THE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY PORTFOLIO MANAGER. SUCH TRANSACTIONS CAN BE COMPARE D WITH TRADING IN COMMODITIES OR REAL ESTATE. IF AN ASSESSEE GIVES MONEY TO A PROPERTY DE ALER WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS TO PURCHASE, GET POSSESSION AND SALE AT A REASONABLE PROFIT KEEPING IN VIEW THE MARKET CONDITIONS. THE PROPERTY DEALER ACTING AS AN AGENT ENTERS INTO SERIES OF TRA NSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE EARNS PROFIT IN SOME OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND INCURS LOSS IN SOME OF THEM. THE PROPERTY DEALER AFTER CHARGING HIS COMMISSION AND EXPENSES WILL HANDOVER THE AMOUN T TOGETHER PROFIT TO THE PRINCIPAL. CAN THE PROFIT EARNED OR LOSS INCURRED ON SUCH TRANSACT IONS BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAIN OR LOSS. THE ANSWER IS NO. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE PROFITS ARISING ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES ARE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND NOT AS INV ESTMENT. MERELY BECAUSE THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES HAD OCCURRED THROUGH DEMAT ACCOUNT O N DELIVERY BASED; IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION. SINCE THE PORTFOLIO MANAGER IN THE CAPACITY OF AN AGENT HAS TRADED IN SHARES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PRO FITS ARISING THEREFROM WILL BE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS PROFITS. FURTHER SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ASSESS EE HAS TREATED THE DEPOSITS MADE UNDER 5 ITA NO. 1713/KOL/2013 AKANKSHA VINIYOG LTD. AY 2006-07 PMS AS INVESTMENTS AND BALANCE SHARES LYING IN DEMA T ACCOUNT AS ON THE LAST DAY OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR UNDER THE HEAD 'INVESTMENT' WOULD N OT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF TRADING DONE BY THE PORTFOLIO MANAGER ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SHARES PURCHASED AND SOLD DURING THE YEAR HAVE NOT BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S AS INVESTMENT NOR IT IS FEASIBLE TO RECORD AS THE DETAILS WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL OR SAY AS TO WHEN AND THE TYPE OF SHARES OR THE PERIOD OF HOLDIN G OF THE SHARES. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE TRANSACTIONS ARE IN THE NAT URE OF BUSINESS. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF GOPAL PUROHIT (SUPRA) I S NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. 5.1. THE JURISDICTION OF THE LD CIT U/S 263 OF TH E ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN HE FINDS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD AO WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE R EVISED U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LA W IS WELL SETTLED THAT FAILURE OF THE LD AO TO MAKE AN ENQUIRY WHICH HE OUGHT TO HAVE MADE BEFORE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT, IN THE GIVEN SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , RENDER S HIS ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE LD AO HAD ACCEPTED THE PROFIT ON SALE OF MUTUAL FUNDS AND DERIVATIVES TO BE ASSES SED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS WHICH IS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE LD CIT. THE LD AO HA D ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION TOWARDS KEYMAN INSURANCE PREMIUM IN THE SUM OF RS. 2,28,780 /- BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 762 DATED 18.2.1998 WHICH IS BINDING ON HIM. IN FACT, WE FIND THAT THE LD AO THOUGH HAD REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT INITIALLY ON THE PRETEXT THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY KEYMAN INSURANCE PREMIUM AND DEPRECIATION ARE NOT ALLOWABLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, WAS THOROUGHLY CONV INCED ON THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS AND ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION TOWA RDS KEYMAN INSURANCE PREMIUM BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 762 DATED 18.2.19 98 WHICH CIRCULAR IS ACTUALLY BINDING ON HIM. HOWEVER, HE PROCEEDED TO DISALLOW THE PORTI ON OF THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON CAR AS NOT USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AS ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBS TANTIATED THE USAGE OF THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THESE FACTS GO TO PROVE BEYON D DOUBT THAT THE LD AO HAD DULY APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE ASPECT AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD I NDEED CARRIED ON ANY BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR OR NOT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE LD AO HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AS ALLOWABLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. HENCE IT COULD BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE LD AO HAD INDEED MADE REQUISITE ENQUIRY IN THE GIVEN SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAD TAKEN A JUDICIOUS VIEW ON THE ENTIRE ISSUE. HE NCE HIS ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. WE F IND THAT EVEN THE LD CIT HAD NOT DISTURBED 6 ITA NO. 1713/KOL/2013 AKANKSHA VINIYOG LTD. AY 2006-07 THE CLAIM OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TO BE ALLOWED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. HENCE EITHER WAY, NO PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE BY THE ORDER OF THE LD AO. HENCE THE TWIN CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ARE NOT SATISFIED. IN THIS REGARD, WE PLACE RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISION S :- MALABAR INDUSTRIES CO LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN 243 IT R 83 (SC) THE PHRASE 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE' HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. EVERY LOSS OF RE VENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF A.O. CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT IF THE A.O. HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW O R WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE A.O. HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH CIT DOES NOT AGREE, T HE ORDER CANNOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE UNLESS T HE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O. IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. BONGAIGAON REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD VS UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN 287 ITR 120 (GAU) 'ENTERTAINMENT OF A VIEW DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE AD OPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFJICER, IF PLAUSIBLE WOULD NOT CLOTHE THE COMMISSIONER WITH THE POWER TO INTERFERE THEREWITH UNDER THE SAID PROVISION OF THE ACT. DIFFERENTLY PUT, AN ERROR WITHIN THE JU RISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AN EVALUATION OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE WOULD NOT BE EXPOSED TO INTERFERENCE IN EXERCISE OF SUO MOTU REVISIONAL POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE PROVISION THOUGH PERMITS THE COMMISSIONER TO INITIATE AN ENQUIRY AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY DOE S NOT AUTHORISE A ROVING PROBE INTO THE FACTS WITH THE DISPOSITION TO PICK OUT ERRORS TO SUSTAIN THE EVENTUAL INTERFERENCE. THIS ASSUMES GREAT SIGNIFICANCE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE STATUTORY FRAMEW ORK OF THE ACT OUTLINING THE JURISDICTIONAL CONTOURS OF DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES AS LEGISLATIVELY STIPULATED. THE COMMISSIONER IN EXERCISE OF HIS REVISIONAL POWERS C ANNOT-ARROGATE TO HIMSELF A STATUS TO SURROGATE THE OTHER AUTHORITIES AND SUPPLANT THEIR ROLES UNDER THE ACT'. 6. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FINDINGS IN THE GIVEN SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON HEREINABOVE , ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE , WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD C IT U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.07.201 6 SD/- SD/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED : 15 TH JULY, 2016 JD.(SR.P.S.) 7 ITA NO. 1713/KOL/2013 AKANKSHA VINIYOG LTD. AY 2006-07 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT AKANKSHA VINIYOG LTD., 1/1A, BIPLABI AN UKUL STREET, KOLKATA-700072. 2 RESPONDENT CIT-1, KOLKATA. 3 . THE DCIT, KOLKATA 4. 5. ITO, WARD-1(4), KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .