M/S PEOPLE'S INTERNATIONAL & SERVICES P. LTD., Bhopal V. THE CIT-I, Bhopal

ITA 609/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5612 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N D PATWA
• Assessee Lawyers: LALCHAND
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 263; 63

Judgement Text

PG INFRASTRUCTURE ITA NOS. 607,608 & 609/IND/2016 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE .., ..!', #$ # !% BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. I.T.A. NO. 607/IND/2016 2. I.T.A. NO. 608/IND/2016 3. I.T.A. NO. 609/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 1. P.G. INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICE PVT. LTD. BHOPAL 2. S.N. VIJAYWARGIYA BHOPAL 3. PEOPLES INTERNATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD. BHOPAL :: APPELLANTS VS PR. CIT-I BHOPAL :: RESPONDENT REVENUE BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL & SHRI N.D.PATWA ASSESSEE BY SHRI LALCHAND ! ' #$ DATE OF HEARING 15.11.2016 %&'( #$ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.11.2016 * O R D E R PER SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEE S AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL C IT, BHOPAL, DATED 26.2.2016, 26.2.2016 AND 26.3.2016. PG INFRASTRUCTURE ITA NOS. 607,608 & 609/IND/2016 2 2. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 2 7, 42 AND 23 DAYS, RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ON THE GROUND THAT SHRI H.P. VERMA, SENIOR COUNSEL WAS ENGAGED TO FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME BUT BECAUSE OF H IS ILLNESS, HE COULD NOT PREPARE THE APPEAL IN TIME AN D AS SUCH THE APPEALS COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR OPPOSED TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY REQUEST. 3. AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE SAM E. 4. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE COMMON ISSUE IS AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PASSED UNDE R SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. IN ITA NO. 607/IND/2016 TH E FOLLOWING FACTS ARE INVOLVED. 5. THE COMPANY HAS DECLARED LOSS OF RS.15529993/- AND CLAIMED REFUND OF RS. 1043840/- ON ACCOUNT OF T DS. PG INFRASTRUCTURE ITA NOS. 607,608 & 609/IND/2016 3 THE RECONCILIATION OF 26-SS STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN DONE VIS--VIS OFFERED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. A S PER 26- SS STATEMENT THE TOTAL RECEIPT IS RS.51999651/- WHI CH WAS SHOWN WITH TDS OF RS.1048602/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TDS OF RS. 1043840/-. THEREFOR E, THERE IS UNDISCLOSED TDS OF RS. 4762/- AND CONSEQUE NTLY IT WAS NOT VERIFIED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WAS NO T DEPOSITED IN GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT . THERE WAS DELAY 1 DAY TO 240 DAYS. THEREFORE, SUCH DELAY IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 40IA OF THE ACT. AS PER THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.542450/- IN THE BANK DURING THE YEAR WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, TH E CASH DEPOSITED HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED WITH REFERENCE TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 6. IN ITA NO. 609/IND/2016 THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD LA ND AT GANGAPUR, GWALIOR, FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. PG INFRASTRUCTURE ITA NOS. 607,608 & 609/IND/2016 4 7526600/-. IT HAS OFFERED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OFRS.414219/- BY CLAIMING COST OF ACQUISITION OF RS.74851781/-. HOWEVER, FROM THE DETAILS FILED IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED LAND THROU GH A SEPARATE TRANSFER FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.6526500/-. THE DIFFERENCE IN COST OF ACQUISITIO N HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED. 7. DURING THE YEAR HUGE INTEREST FREE LOAN OF RS.119.91 CRORES AND RS. 50.68 CRORES HAS BEEN GIVE N TO SISTER CONCERN, NAMELY, PGH INTERNATIONAL AND PH IN FRA- STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S NOT EXAMINED THE NATURE OF ADVANCE AND DETAILS OF INTER EST RECEIVED. THE COPY OF 26-SS STATEMENT IS ALSO NOT O N RECORD. THE RECONCILIATION OF RECEIPT APPEARING IN 26-SS STATEMENT VIS--VIS RECEIPT OFFERED IN PROFIT AND L OSS ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED. 8. IN ITA NO. 608/IND/2016 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER PG INFRASTRUCTURE ITA NOS. 607,608 & 609/IND/2016 5 IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- (I) THAT THE REASON FOR SELECTION OF THIS CASE FOR SCRUTINY WAS TO EXAMINE THE HUGE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 153A/143(3) FOR A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2009-10 AND ORDER U/S 143(3) PASSED ON 26.12.2011 ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN PURCHASE OF LAND. BUT THE ISSUES STATED ABOVE HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (II) THAT AS PER THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME IT HAS SHOWN SALE CONSIDERATION OF BUILDING (SOLD ON 15.09.2010) AT RS. 1,20,00,000/- AND PURCHASE COST AT RS.63,44,238/- AND OFFERED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 56,55,762/-. WHILE ACCEPTING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF BUILDING, TH E SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TOWARES COST OF ACQUISITION HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT SAID BUILDING WAS SOLD TO M/S PGH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. AND IN LIEU OF SALE CONSIDERATION, THE COMPANY HAS ALLOTTED 12,000 SHARES OF FACE VALUE OF RS.10/- EACH TO THE ASSESSEE. M/S PGH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. IS FAMILY CONCERN. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INVESTED RS.1,38,00,000/- IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE SAID COMPANY. (III) THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TH E LEDGER ACCOUNT IN VARIOUS SISTER CONCERNS HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. PG INFRASTRUCTURE ITA NOS. 607,608 & 609/IND/2016 6 (IV) THAT THE RECONCILIATION OF RECEIPTS AS PER 26A S STATEMENT VIS--VIS INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS ALSO NOT BEEN EXAMINED IN DETAIL. 9. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE WITHOUT CONDUCTING PROPER INQUIRY WHICH IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONCLUSION :- (I) RAM PYARI DEVI SARAOGI VS. CIT; 67 ITR 84(SC) (II) CIT VS. SESHASAYEE PAPER & BOARDS LIMITED; 242 ITR 490 (MAD.) (III) CIT VS. BHAGWAN DAS; 272 ITR 367 (ALL.) (IV) PRADTAP FOOTWEAR VS. ACIT; SOT 638 (JAB.)(TRI. ) IN ALL THESE CASES, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER U/S 27(1) OF THE ACT DATED 29.3. 2014 PASSED BY THE THEN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOP AL, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER ON 30.30.2014. SINCE THE CASE WAS GETTING TIME BARRED ON 31.3.2014, THEREFORE, IT IS EVIDENT FROM RECORD THA T THE PG INFRASTRUCTURE ITA NOS. 607,608 & 609/IND/2016 7 ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY INVESTIGATION AN D PASSED THE ORDER ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ALSO REL IED ON CLAUSE (A) AND (C) TO EXPLANATION-2 TO SECTION 2 63 OF THE ACT WHICH SAYS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIA L TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IF IN THE OPINION OF TH E PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT MAKING INQUIRY OR VERIFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BE EN MADE AND THE ORDER IS PASSED ALLOWING ANY RELIEF WI THOUT INQUIRING INTO THE CLAIM. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX WAS OF THE VIEW IN ALL THE CASES THAT TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFO RE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE MA TTER WAS THEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FOR PG INFRASTRUCTURE ITA NOS. 607,608 & 609/IND/2016 8 EXAMINING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 9. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SYNOPSIS IN ALL THE THREE CASES WHICH READ AS UNDER :- THE REVISION U/S 263 HAS BEEN INITIATED FOR 3 REASO NS AS BELOW :- ITA NO. 607/IND/2016 SR. NO. REASON GIVEN U/S 263 SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE 1 AS PER 26AS STATEMENT, TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS.5,19,99,651/- WAS SHOWN WITH TDS RS.10,48,603/-; WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TDS OF RS.10,43,840. THUS, THERE IS NON RECONCILIATION OF TDS OF RS.4,762/- AND CONSEQUENT RECEIPTS THEREOF THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.4,762/- WAS RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS PLACED AT PB 8. THE OBSERVATION IS FACTUALLY WRONG AND CANNOT BE A REASON FOR REVISION U/S 263 2 THERE IS DELAY IN DEPOSITION OF TDS, HENCE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED PB 36-40 IS THE PART OF TAX AUDIT REPORT. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(1) DURING ASSESSMENT, A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED ON SAME. REPLY TO THE QUERY IS AT PB 12 PARA 5 3 CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED ALL THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ARE ROUTED PG INFRASTRUCTURE ITA NOS. 607,608 & 609/IND/2016 9 DURING ASSESSMENT RS.54,34,500 THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT. NO SPECIFIC ENTRY FOUND, NOT TO HAVE BEEN ROUTED OTHERWISE. BOOKS WERE PRODUCED IN ASSESSMENT THEY ARE AUDITED. THE OBSERVATION IS VAGUE AND NON-SPECIFIC ITA NO. 608/IND/2016 SR. NO. REASON GIVEN U/S 263 SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE 1 CASE WAS SELECETED FOR SCRUTINY TO EXAMINE HUGE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 153A/143(3) FOR A.Y.2004- 05 TO 2009-10 AND ORDER U/S 143(3) PASSED ON 26.1.2011 ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS MADE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN PURCHASE OF LAND. THESE ISSUES WERE NOT VERIFIED IN ASSESSMENT PB-10 PARA 14-15. PURCHASE OF LANDS VERIFIED. ALSO THE RELEVANT A.Y.2011-12 IS A PERIOD AFTER SEARCH I.E. 23.07.2009. THUS, IT HAS NO NEXUS WITH THE MATERIAL FOUND IN SEARCH 2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND TOWARDS COST OF ACQUISITION OF BUILDING SOLD, RESULTING IN CAPITAL GAINS NOT GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT PB 11 PARA 17 PB 7 PARA 1,3, PB 13-14 THE DETAILS WERE ASKED AND VERIFIED IN ASSESSMENT AT MULTIPLE DATES. 3 BANK ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AND LEDGER ACCOUNTS IN VARIOUS SISTER CONCERNS WERE NOT VERIFIED IN ASSESSMENT PB 7 PARA 5, PB 8 PARA 10, PB 9 PARA 6 & 7, DETAILS GIVEN DURING ASSESSMENT. ALL BANK ACCOUNTED VERIFIED. 4 RECONCILIATION OF TDS WITH 26AS NOT GIVEN AND RECEIPTS SHOWN PB 8 PARA 15 DETAILS GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT. PG INFRASTRUCTURE ITA NOS. 607,608 & 609/IND/2016 10 ITA NO. 609/IND/2016 SL.NO. REASONS GIVEN U/S 263 SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE 1 LAND SOLD AT DONGARPUR, GWALIOR. COST OF SAME CLAIMED ATRS.7,48,51,781. FROM DETAILS FILED, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED THROUGH SEPARATE TRANSFER DEEDS FOR RS.6,52,65,000 (A)COST WITH REGISTRATION EXPENSES IS RS.7,48,51,781, PB 12 (B) THUS, THE FINDING IS INCORRECT THAT ISSUE WAS NOT EXAMINED; ALSO THIS IS ALSO INCORRECT THAT THE COST IS RS.6,52,65,000. THE ORDER OF LD. A.O. CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL 2 INTEREST FREE LOANS OF RS.11.91 CRORES AND RS.5.68 CRORES GIVEN TO M/S PGH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. AND M/S PG INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES PVT. LTD. SISTER CONCERNS. A.O. HAS NOT EXAMINED THE NATURE OF ADVANCES AND DETAILS OF INTEREST RECEIVED. (A)FINDINGS ARE OPPOSED TO FACTS, AS IN THE NOTICE IT IS SAID INTEREST FREE LOANS AND ON THE OTHER HAND IT IS SAID DETAILS OF INTEREST RECEIVED WAS NOT EXAMINED BY A.O. (B) THIS ASPECT WAS EXAMINED BY LD. A.O. PB 10 PARA 19 3 RECONCILIATION OF RECEIPTS APPEARING IN 26AS STATEMENT VIS--VIS RECEIPTS OFFERED IN P&L ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN DONE (A)THERE WAS NO NEED OF RECONCILIATION AS THE INTEREST INCOME SHOWN TALLIED WITH FORM 26AS. THE AMOUNT OF TDS ALSO TALLIED. PB 16-19. (B) ON THIS COUNT, HOW IT CAN BE SAID THAT PREJUDICE WAS CAUSED TO REVENUE. IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT, COULD N OT HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO REVENUE .FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED ON SUBMISSIONS FILED TO LD. CIT. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON T HE ORDER DATED 14 TH JULY, 2016 OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL PG INFRASTRUCTURE ITA NOS. 607,608 & 609/IND/2016 11 IN THE CASES OF M/S GULMOHAR TRADERS AND OTHERS IN ITA NO. 467/IND/2016, 275/IND/2016 ETC. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT A VERY UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT TOOK PLACE AGAINST THE AO DOIN G THE ASSESSMENT AGAINST WHOM ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE CB I AND THE SAID OFFICER WAS SUSPENDED. THEREAFTER, ON 29.03.2014 BY ORDER PASSED U/S 127 OF THE ACT, THE CIT TRANSFERRED THE CASES TO THE PRESENT ASSESSING OFFI CER. THE PRESENT ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSM ENT ON 30 TH MARCH, 2014, AS THEY WERE GETTING BARRED BY LIMITATION AT THE RETURNED INCOME FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY. HE ARGUED THAT THOUGH T HE EARLIER AO MAY HAVE MADE ENQUIRY IN THESE CASES BUT DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME THE PRESENT ASSESSING OFFICE R DID NOT HAVE TIME TO LOOK INTO THE VOLUMINOUS MATERIAL AND FORM OPINION BEFORE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFOR E, THE CIT WAS JUSTIFIED IN REMANDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE PG INFRASTRUCTURE ITA NOS. 607,608 & 609/IND/2016 12 FILE OF AO VIDE HIS PRESENT ORDER IN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY AO AND LACK OF ENQUIRY BY AO ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE AP PEALS. HENCE, HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT SHOULD B E CONFIRMED. THE LEARNED DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THESE CASES THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS PASSED TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS REQUESTED THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR PASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT BEC AUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GET ANY TIME TO EXAMI NE AND INVESTIGATE THE CASE. MOREOVER, AS PER CLAUSE (A) A ND (B) TO EXPLANATION 2 INSERTED WITH FINANCE ACT, 2015 WI TH EFFECT FROM 1.6.2015 IF THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY AND VERIFICATION AND THE ORDER I S PASSED BY ALLOWING ANY RELIEF WITHOUT INQUIRING INT O THE CLAIM, SUCH ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LEARNED DR RELIED THE DECISIONS IN CIT VS. AMITACH BACHAN; CIVIL APPEAL N O. PG INFRASTRUCTURE ITA NOS. 607,608 & 609/IND/2016 13 5009 OF 2016; MALABAR INDUSTRIES; CIT VS. NAGESH KNITWEARS P. LTD.; 345 ITR 135; G.V. ENTERPRISES VS . CIT; 99 ITR 375 (DEL); BHUSHAN STEEL VS. CIT; ITAT, DELH I BENCH; CIT VS. DEEPAKKUMAR; 299 ITR 435 AND CIT VS. MAHAVAR TRADERS; 220 ITR 167. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS O F THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT IN SIMILAR TYPE OF CASES IN I TA NOS. 467/IND/2016, 275/IND/2016, 341/IND/2016 ETC. ETC. THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 14 TH JULY, 2016 HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND KEEPING IN VIEW TH E PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE CASES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN SHORT TIME FROM 29.03.2014 TO 30.03.2014, IT WAS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE EXAMIN ED THE RETURNS OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS THE DETAILS A ND PARTICULARS FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURNS AND FOR M AN OPINION AND FRAME A DETAILED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON TH E ISSUES IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN ACCEPTING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND UPHOLDING THE PRESENT ORDERS PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961, BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. THUS, THE PG INFRASTRUCTURE ITA NOS. 607,608 & 609/IND/2016 14 GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO MAKE ANY INQUIRY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEP TED THE RETURN WITHOUT PROPER INQUIRY AS A RESULT OF WH ICH SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TAXABLE INCOME WAS NOT BROUGH T TO TAX. WE ALSO HOLD THAT NO RULE OF UNIVERSAL APPLICA TION CAN BE LAID DOWN FOR EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IT WILL DEPEND ON THE FACTS OF EAC H AND EVERY CASE BUT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUST BE SATISFIED OF EXISTENCE OF TWIN CONDITIONS THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WE ALSO GET SUPPORT FROM T HE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS :- (I) RAM PYARI DEVI SARAOGI VS. CIT; 67 ITR 84(SC) (II) CIT VS. SESHASAYEE PAPER & BOARDS LTD.; 242 IT R 490 (MAD.) (III) CIT VS. BHAGWANDAS; 272 ITR 367 (ALL) PG INFRASTRUCTURE ITA NOS. 607,608 & 609/IND/2016 15 (IV) PRATAP FOOTWEAR VS. ACIT; (2003) SOT 638 (JABALPUR)(TRI) (V) CIT VS. AMITABH BACHAN (SUPRA); CIVIL APPEAL NO.5009 OF 2016 (SC) WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CIT VS. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG; 2 99 ITR 435 HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD AS UNDER :- HELD, THAT FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , IT WAS CLEAR THAT FOR WANT OF TIME, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD DONE ONLY A SEMBLANCE OF ENQUIRY AND THAT TOO, IN A VERY SLIP-SHOD MANNER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROPER ENQUIRY AND AS A RESULT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TAXABLE INCOME WAS NOT BROUGHT TO TAX. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD RECORDED A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WANT OF ADEQUATE ENQUIRY WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND AFTER SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT ON THE MERITS. THE LEARNED CIT ALSO DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO OBSERVE THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARI NG TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE MAKING A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE MERITS. THIS WOULD ADEQUATELY SAFEGUAR D THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE AND WOULD CAUSE NO PREJUDICE. THE ORDER OF REVISION WAS VALID. PG INFRASTRUCTURE ITA NOS. 607,608 & 609/IND/2016 16 THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( ..!') (..) #$ (O.P.MEENA) (D.T.GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER (') / DATED : 21 ST NOVEM BER, 2016. DN/