ChrysCapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. CIT Delhi- I, New Delhi

ITA 2218/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52485 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHNA
• Assessee Lawyers: SS VIKAS SRIVASTAVA; SUNNY AGGARWAL
• Section: 37; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ITA NO. 2218/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 CHRYSCAPITAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS VS. COMMISSIONER O F IT, DELHI-I, (INDIA) PVT. LTD., SUITE-101, 3 RD FLOOR, CR BUILDING, THE OBEROI, DR. ZAKIR HUSSAIN MARG, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AABCC4609H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: S/S. VIKAS SRIVASTAVA , ADV.AND SUNNY AGGARWAL, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI KRISHNA, CIT (DR) ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT DATED 15.03.2010 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS TAK EN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH RULE 8 OF THE ITAT'S RULES, THEY ARE DESCRIPTIVE AND ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE. IN BRIEF, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE ACT AND SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THREE ISSUES AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER EXAMINING THE NATURE OF EXPENSES BY MAKING AN INQUIRY AND AFTER G IVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF 2 HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CAS E ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CARRYING OUT RESEARCH AN D SCOUTING ACTIVITIES FOR MANAGEMENT COMPANIES TO IDENTIFY ENTREPRENEURS AND PORTFOLIO COMPANIES, REQUIRING ASSISTANCE IN TERMS OF CAPITAL INFUSION, STRATEGIC DIRECTION AND FINANCIAL ADVICE. IT ALSO ASSISTS MANAGEMENT IN INV ESTOR REPORTING. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON IST OF DECEMBER 2003 DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.83,29,610. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND A NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2) WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 24.2.2006. H E DETERMINED THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE AT RS.1,38,64,130. - 2. LEARNED COMMISSIONER ON SCRUTINY OF THE ASSESSME NT RECORD FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THREE AMOUNT S, AS REVENUE EXPENSES, NAMELY, SECURITY DEPOSIT WRITTEN OFF AMOUNTING TO R S.44 LACS; (B) MOVING COST AMOUNTING TO RS.1,68,294; (C) SEVERANCE COST O F RS.20,73,709 UNDER THE HEAD PERSONAL EXPENSES. LEARNED COMMISSIONER ON A N ANALYSIS OF THE DETAILS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF R S.79,82,400 AS INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT FOR ITS OFFICE LOCATED AT KAM LA MILLS COMPOUND, LOWER PAREL. THE ASSESSEE HAD VACATED ITS PREMISES BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE LEASE PERIOD, LANDLORD REFUNDED RS.35,82,400 AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.44,00,000 3 WAS FORFEITED. SIMILARLY, A SUM OF RS.1,68,294 WAS DEBITED TOWARDS EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF SHIFTING OF THE OFFICE PREMISES FROM MUMBAI TO NEW DELHI. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CLAIMED AS RE VENUE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SET UP A NEW OFFICE IN DELHI. IT HAS D ISCONTINUED ITS BUSINESS IN MUMBAI DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. IN LIEU OF T HE DISCONTINUATION OF THE SERVICES, MUMBAI OFFICE EMPLOYEES WERE PAID 1-2 MONTHS SALARY DEPENDING UPON LEVEL OF EMPLOYEES AND THIS SALARY C OST HAS BEEN TERMED AS SEVERANCE COST. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.20,73,709. LEARNED COMMISSIONER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ALL THESE EXPE NSES ARE PRIMA FACIE CAPITAL IN NATURE AND, THEREFORE, NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. HE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE ACCOUNTING ENTRI ES AS IT IS WITHOUT INVESTIGATING THE ISSUE AND WITHOUT RAISING ANY QUE RY, HENCE HIS ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. HE ISSUED A SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE ACT. IT ALSO EME RGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT EARLIER LEARNED COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE UNDER SEC. 263 AND PASSED AN ORDER ON 31.3.2008. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS ORDER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT IN ITA NO.3730/MUM/08. ITS A PPEAL HAS BEEN ALLOWD BY THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 7 TH OCTOBER 2009. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE PASSING ORDER UNDER SEC. 263, PROPER OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING WAS NOT GRANTED. THE ITAT HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED CIT AND RESTORED 4 THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT FOR PASSING A FRESH ORDER. THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM MUMBAI TO DELHI AND LEARNED COMMISSIONER AT DELHI HAD ISSUED A FRESH SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 263. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER. LEARNED COMMISS IONER HAS REPRODUCED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE I MPUGNED ORDER. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, LEAR NED COMMISSIONER HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY INQUIRY BEFORE ACCEPTING THE ACCO UNTING ENTRY AS IT IS. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE IMPU GNING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS SUBMITTED A REPLY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 13 TH OCTOBER 2005 WHICH IS PLACED ON PAGE 42 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THIS LETTER , IT HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF SEVERANCE COST AND OTHER DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE HAS GONE THROUGH EVERY DETAILS. THE BREAK OF EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF SEVERANCE COST IS PLACED ON PAGE 50 OF T HE PAPER BOOK. SIMILARLY, THE DETAILS OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES IS PLACED ON PAGE NO.49 OF THE PAPER 5 BOOK. HE POINTED OUT THAT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT, I T WAS CONTENDED THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON VACATION OF RENTED PREMISES IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISIO N OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD. VS. ITO REPORTED IN 3 ITD 5 25. THE AMOUNT OF RS.44 LACS FORFEITED BY THE LANDLORD AND WRITTEN OF F BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF LEASE PREMISES CANNOT BE TRE ATED AS A CAPITAL LOSS BECAUSE THE FORFEITURES WAS ON ACCOUNT OF LICENSE F OR A LIMITED PERIOD ONLY AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT LOST A BENEFIT OF AN ENDUR ING NATURE. WITH REGARD TO THE ALLEGED COMPENSATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO TH E EMPLOYEES WHO DID NOT AGREE TO SHIFT THEIR BASE FROM MUMBAI TO DELHI ON S HIFTING OF MUMBAI OFFICE TO DELHI, HE SUBMITTED THAT SUCH EXPENSES IS AN ALL OWABLE EXPENSES UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE ACT. HE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR VS. CI T REPORTED IN 247 ITR 178. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A NUMBER OF UNITS. HE HAS CLOSED FOUR UNITS AND PAID RETRENCHMENT COMPENSATION TO TH E EMPLOYEES. IT WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT MOVING COST IS ALSO AN ALLOWABLE EXP ENDITURE. IN THIS WAY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LE ARNED COMMISSIONER OUGHT TO HAVE NOT TAKEN COGNIZANCE UNDER SECTION 26 3 OF THE ACT,1961. LEARNED D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE LEARNED 6 COMMISSIONER. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF GEE VEE ENTERPRISES REPORTED IN 99 ITR 373, HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HA S EXPOUNDED THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE LOOKED INTO WITHIN TH E LIGHT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURTS DECISION THEN IT WOULD REVEAL THAT ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY INQUIRY ON THESE ISSUES. HE HAS ACCEP TED THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES AS IT IS. THEREFORE, HIS ORDER HAS RIGHTLY BEEN TERMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN TEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATE D ALL THESE ARGUMENTS ON THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE ON MERITS BUT N ONE OF THE AUTHORITIES HAVE CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE WITH THAT ANGLE. ASSESSING OF FICER DID NOT TOUCH THE ISSUE WHEREAS LEARNED COMMISSIONER IS OF THE OPINIO N THAT IT REQUIRES INVESTIGATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUE REGARDING ITS ADMISSIBILITY, THEREFORE, ALL THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE ARE IRRELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THIS APPEAL. THE LIM ITED ISSUE BEFORE THE ITAT IS WHETHER LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS RIGHTLY TERMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE ALSO MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF 7 MALABAR INDUSTRIES AS WELL DECISION OF HON'BLE MUMB AI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GABRIAL INDIA REPORTED IN 203 ITR 108. 4. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MRS. KHA TIZA S. OOMERBHOY VS. ITO,MUMBAI, 101 TTJ 1095, HAS ANALYZED IN DETAIL VARIOUS AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES 243 ITR 83 AS WELL AS H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GABRIEL INDIA LTD. RE PORTED IN 203 ITR 108 AND HAS PROPOUNDED THE FOLLOWING BROADER PRINCIPLE TO JUDGE THE ACTION OF CIT TAKEN UNDER SECTION 263: THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE WHICH EMERGE FROM THE A BOVE CASES MAY BE SUMMARIZED BELOW (I) THE CIT MUST RECORD SATISFACTION THAT THE ORDE R OF THE A.O IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. BOTH T HE CONDITIONS MUST BE FULFILLED. (II) SEC. 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AN D EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE A,O AND IT WAS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. (III) AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCOR RECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SUFFICE THE REQUIREMENT OF ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. (IV) IF THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION O F MIND, SUCH ORDER WILL FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF ERRONEOUS ORDER. (V) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE CANNOT BE TREATED AS PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND IF THE A.O HAS ADOPTED ONE OF TH E COURSES PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE A.O HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT B E TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O I S UNSUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW. 8 (VI) IF WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, THE A.O EXAMI NES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES ENQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINE THE INCOME, THE CIT, WHILE EXERC ISING HIS POWER UNDER S. 263 IS NOT PERMITTED TO SUBSTITUTE HIS ESTIMATE OF INCOME IN PLACE OF THE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. (VII) THE A.O EXERCISES QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER VEST ED IN HIS AND IF HE EXERCISES SUCH POWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ARR IVES AT A CONCLUSION, SUCH CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS SI MPLY BECAUSE THE CIT DOES NOT FEEL SATISFIED WITH THE CONCLUSION. (VIII) THE CIT, BEFORE EXERCISING HIS JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 MUST HAVE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION. (IX) IF THE A.O HAS MADE ENQUIRIES DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DETAILED EXPLANATION BY A LETTER IN WRITING AND THE A.O ALLO WS THE CLAIM ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DECISION OF THE A.O CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HI S ORDER HE DOES NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD. 5. BEFORE EMBARKING UPON AN INQUIRY ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND HOW THOSE FACTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LEA RNED REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A REFERENCE OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VEE GEE ENTERPRISES REPORTED IN 99 ITR 373 WHEREIN HON'BLE HI GH COURT HAS EXPOUNDED THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHI LE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT RE AD AS UNDER:- IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRIES BEFORE CANCELING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OF FICER. THE COMMISSIONER CAN REGARD THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER SHOULD HAVE MADE FURTHER INQ UIRIES BEFORE ACCEPTING THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN. THE REASON IS OBVIOUS. THE POSITION AND FUNCTION OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS VERY DIFF ERENT FROM THAT OF A CIVIL COURT. THE STATEMENT MADE IN A PLEADING PROVED BY THE MINI MUM AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE MAY BE ADOPTED BY A CIVIL COURT IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY REBUTTAL. THE CIVIL COURT IS NEUTRAL. IT SIMPLY GIVES DECISION ON THE BASIS OF T HE PLEADING AND EVIDENCE WHICH COMES BEFORE IT. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS NOT ONLY AN ADJUDICATOR BUT ALSO AN INVESTIGATOR. HE CANNOT REMAIN PASSIVE IN THE FACE OF THE RETURN WHICH IS APPARENTLY IN ORDER BUT CALLS FOR FURTHER INQUIRY. IT IS HIS DUTY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN THE CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE ARE SUCH AS TO PROVOKE AN INQUIRY. IT IS BECAUSE IT IS INCUMBENT O N THE ITO TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES W OULD MADE SUCH AN INQUIRY PRUDENT THAT THE WORD ERRONEOUS IN SECTION 263 IN CLUDES THE FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH AN ENQUIRY. THE ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS BECAUSE SUC H AN INQUIRY HAS NOT BEEN MADE AND NOT BECAUSE THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH T HE ORDER IF ALL THE FACTS STATED THEREIN ARE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT. 6. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE PROPOSITION, LET US EXAMIN E THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PLACE ON RECORD THE COPY OF ANY QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. HE HAS PLACED LETTER WRITTEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON 13 TH OCTOBER 2005. IT IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE WHETHER ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR ANY INFORM ATION ON THOSE ISSUES OR NOT. EVEN OTHERWISE FROM THIS LETTER, IT IS NOT DIS CERNIBLE THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COMPLETE BREAK UP OF THESE EXPENSES AND A SSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE WITH THE ASSESSEE DURING THE P ROCEEDINGS EVEN WITHOUT DISCUSSING ANYTHING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN OTH ER WORDS, HAD THE 10 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED A QUESTIONNAIRE, ASSES SEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY ON SUCH QUESTIONNAIRE AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DIS CUSSED THE ISSUE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND IF HE WAS SATISFIED THEN PROBABLY THER E MAY NOT BE ANY ACTION UNDER SEC. 263 EVEN IF DISCUSSION IS NOT DISCERNIBL E IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BUT FROM THE RECORD, ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND ON THESE ISSUES. IN A WAY, IT EMERGES OUT THAT HE HAS ACCEPTED THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES AS IT IS. LEARN ED COMMISSIONER HAS NOT MADE ANY COMMENT ON THE MERITS OF THE ALLOWABILITY OF THESE EXPENSES. HE DEEMED IT FIT TO RELEGATE THIS ISSUE TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOR FURTHER SCRUTINY AND ADJUDICATION. THEREFORE, THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AT ALL RELE VANT. THE ASSESSEE WILL GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO AGITATE ALL THESE ISSUES BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN HE WILL EXAMINE THESE ISSUES. IT IS A PRE-MATURE ST AGE AT THE ITAT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE. LEARNED CO MMISSIONER HAS MADE A PRIMA FACIE OPINION ONLY ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GEE VEE ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) HA S OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER TO MAKE FURT HER INQUIRY BEFORE CANCELING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. IF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED THAT NO INQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING 11 OFFICER ON THESE ISSUES THEN ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.08.201 1 SD/- SD/- ( B.C. MEENA ) ( RAJ PAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12/08/2011 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR