Kailash Chandra Lenka, Bhubaneswar V. CIT, Bhubaneswar

ITA 213/CTK/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 21322114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RABIN CHOUDHURI
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH , CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI P.K.BANSAL (AM) AND D.T.GARASIA (JM) I.T.A. NO. 213/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 KAILASH CHANDRA LENKA, PLOT NO.11, VAISHNOV VIHAR, AIRFIELD, BHUBANESWAR-751010 PA NO.ACLPL 4754 D VS ITO, WARD - 1(2), BHUBANESWAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT FOR THE APPELLANT: NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI RABIN CHOUDHURI DATE OF HEARING: 05/02/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 3 / 3 /2015 ORDER PER P.K.BANSAL, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST ORDER DATED 27.3.2014 OF LD CIT, BHUBANESWAR U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE EXPARTE AFTER HEARING LD D.R. AND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. AFTER HEARING THE LD D.R. AND GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES, WE NOTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 CAN BE INVOKED IF BOTH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER ESTS OF THE REVENUE ARE SATISFIED. IN CASE THE AO HAS MADE ANY INQUIRY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE RE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF LD CIT AND THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD, WE NOTED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO CAN BE REGARDED TO BE ERRONEOUS. LD CIT HAS SIMPLY SET ASIDE THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE AO BY INVOKING THE 2 I.T.A. NO. 213/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 JURISDICTION U/S.263 BY STATING THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE PROPER INQUIRY IN RESPECT OF THE OPENING STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMPLETI ON OF THE ASSESSMENT. INADEQUACY OF INQUIRY CANNOT BE A GROUND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS. LD CIT CANNOT ENTER INTO THE SHOES OF THE AO. SECTION 263, IN OUR OPIN ION, WHERE THE AO HAS MADE INQUIRY, IT IS NOT EMPOWERED THE CIT TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION U/S.26 3 OF THE ACT. THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI VS CIT, 67 ITR 84 (SC) AND TARA DEVI AGARWAL VS CIT, 88 ITR 323 (SC) RELIED ON BY LD CIT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT U/S.263 . 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN PURSUANCE WITH RULE 34(4) BY P UTTING THE COPY OF THE SAME ON NOTICE BOARD ON 3/3/2015. SD/- SD/- (D.T.GARASIA) (P.K.BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, PANAJI 3 / 3 /2015 B.K.PARIDA, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT: KAILASH CHANDRA LENKA, PLOT NO.11, V AISHNOV VIHAR, AIRFIELD, BHUBANESWAR-751010 1. THE RESPONDENT: ITO, WARD-1(2), BHUBANESWAR 2. THE CIT, BHUBANESWAR 3. THE CIT(A), BHUBANESWAR. 4. DR, CUTTACK BENCH 5. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, CUTTACK