Zenith Fish Corporation, Kolkata V. Pr.C.I.T.,-9, Kolkata

ITA 791/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1187 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P K SRIHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: K M ROY
• Keywords: Revision of order; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C, BENCH KO LKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM ITA NO.791/KOL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) M/S ZENITH FISH CORPORATION B-52, DIAMOND PARK, KOLKATA 700104. VS. PR. CIT-9, KOLKATA ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFZ3455E ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. M. ROY, FCA REVENUE BY : DR. P. K. SRIHARI, CIT(DR) / DATE OF HEARING : 26/09/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/12/2019 / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAIN ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD . PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA, UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT , DATED 27.03.2019. 2. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENG ED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX ( IN SHORT, PCIT), UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, DATED 27.03.2019. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT THE ORDER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AS A.O HAS CONDUCTED NECESSARY ENQUIRY AND HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE POSSIBLE COURSE OF ACTION. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH CAN BE STATED QUITE SHORTLY ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSEE-FIRM FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON 06.12.2014 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11,98,290 /-. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. THE ASSESSMENT OR DER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF ITA NO.791/KOL/2019 M/S ZENITH FISH CORPORATION 2 THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS PASSED BY AO ON 05.12.2016 A T AN ASSESSED INCOME OF RS,73,95,440/-. 4. LATER ON, LD PCIT HAS EXERCISED HIS JURISDICTIO N UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE LD PCIT, ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD NO TICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED LABOUR CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.26,25,000/-. THE LD PCIT FURTHER NOTICED THAT THIS EXPENSE IS ALTOGETHER A NEW INTRODUCTION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM THOUGH THE NATURE OF BUSINESS REMAINS UNCHANGED. TH E LD PCIT ALSO NOTICED THAT ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM, SMT. MANJ USHREE CHAKRABORTY HAD INTRODUCED CAPITAL OF RS.16,57,666/- DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. SUCH INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL HAD NOT BEEN ENQUIRED INTO BY THE A.O. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER; NO RELEVANT BANK STATEMENT, CASH FLOW AND /OR CONSOLIDATED PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET WAS FURNISHED BY THE A.O. KE EPING IN LINE WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE ENQUIRIES/VERIFICATION TO EVALUATE THE SOURCE OF SUCH INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL . THE A.O. ALSO FAILED TO APPLY HIS MIND AND MAKE NECESSARY VERIFICATION ALTHOUGH T HE OVERALL MANDATE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SCRUTINIZING THE ASSESSEES RE TURN OF INCOME REQUIRED HIM TO MAKE AN INDEPTH INQUIRY INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS ENUMERATED ABOVE, IT WAS FELT BY LD PCIT THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S. 263 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSES SEE ON 29.10.2018. 5. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF T HE ACT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. PR. CIT THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS WERE IMPOUNDED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DURING THE SURVEY OPERATION ON 20.01.201 4 AND, HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF I TS CLAIM OF EXPENSES TOWARDS LABOUR CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.26,25,000/-. THE ASS ESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE OF CAPITAL INTRODUCTION BY SMT. MANJUSHREE CH AKRABORTY AMOUNTING RS. 16,57,666/- WAS RAISED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AND TO WHICH ASSESSEE DULY COMPLIED. ITA NO.791/KOL/2019 M/S ZENITH FISH CORPORATION 3 6. HOWEVER, THE LD. PR. CIT REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR INVOKING PROVISIONS U/S.263 OF TH E I.T. ACT. THUS, LD PCIT SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO AND RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING A FRESH ASSESSMENT AND EXAMINE THE FOLLOWING S: (A) TO MAKE VERIFICATION OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.26,25,000/-, AND (B) TO INQUIRE INTO THE ISSUE OF INTRODUCTION OF CA PITAL BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS, SMT. MANUSHREE CHAKRABORTY. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE PR. CIT, THE ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS OF LABOUR CHARGES INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES REGARDING CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTN ER. DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143( 1) OF THE ACT AND IN RESPONSE TO SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TO AO THE DO CUMENTS AND EVIDENCES WHICH WERE REQUIRED FOR HIS EXAMINATION. THE AO CONDUCTED TEN HEARINGS AND EXAMINED ALL THE EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF LABOUR CHARGES AND CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS THEREFORE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS NOT ER RONEOUS. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE SU BMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED SUFFICIENT HEARINGS TO EX AMINE THE GENUINENESS OF LABOUR CHARGES AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF INTRODUCTI ON OF CAPITAL BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM THEREFORE, ORDER P ASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. APART F ROM THIS, LD DR HAS PRIMARILY REITERATED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE LD PCIT WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED IN OUR EARLIER PARA AND THE SAME IS NOT BEING REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERSUED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE TO SEE WHETHER THE RE QUISITE JURISDICTION NECESSARY TO ITA NO.791/KOL/2019 M/S ZENITH FISH CORPORATION 4 ASSUME REVISIONAL JURISDICTION IS THERE EXISTING BE FORE THE PR. CIT TO EXERCISE HIS POWER. FOR THAT, WE HAVE TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER I N THE FIRST PLACE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND FAULT BY THE PRINCIPAL CIT IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. FOR THA T, LET US TAKE THE GUIDANCE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX C OURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC) WHEREIN THEIR LO RDSHIP HAVE HELD THAT TWIN CONDITIONS NEEDS TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE EXERCISING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE CIT. THE TWIN CONDITIONS ARE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BE ERRONEOUS AND SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER OF THE AO CAN BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS ORDER, THAT IS (I) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER WAS PASSED ON INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACT; OR (II) INCORRECT APPLICATION O F LAW; OR (III)ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL J USTICE; OR (IV) IF THE ORDER IS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIN D; (V) IF THE AO HAS NOT INVESTIGATED THE ISSUE BEFORE HIM; THEN THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS ORDER. COMING NEXT TO TH E SECOND LIMB, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER THE ACTIONS O F THE AO CAN BE TERMED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. WHEN THIS A SPECT IS EXAMINED ONE HAS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF T HE REVENUE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES (SU PRA) HELD THAT THIS PHRASE I.E. PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE HAS T O BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH EIR LORDSHIP HELD THAT IT HAS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CO NSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURS ES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS TO THE REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO V IEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ITA NO.791/KOL/2019 M/S ZENITH FISH CORPORATION 5 11. TAKING NOTE OF THE AFORESAID DICTUM OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT, LET US EXAMINE WHETHER ORDER PASSED BY THE A O IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE LD COUN SEL SUBMITTED BEFORE US ORDER SHEET OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS MAINTAINE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE HAVE EXAMINE D THE ORDER SHEET AND NOTICED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONDUCTED TEN HE ARINGS. THE PARTICULARS OF TEN HEARINGS AS PER ORDER SHEET IS GIVEN BELOW: ITA NO.791/KOL/2019 M/S ZENITH FISH CORPORATION 6 THE LD COUNSEL SUBMITS BEFORE US THAT DURING THE TE N HEARINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS RELATI NG TO LABOUR CHARGES. BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE LABOUR CHARGES STATING THAT THESE WERE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. THE VERACITY OF THE INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL ITA NO.791/KOL/2019 M/S ZENITH FISH CORPORATION 7 BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS, SMT. MANUSHREE CHAKRABORTY, HAS ALSO BEEN EXAMINED BY AO IN DETAIL. THEREFORE, ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS NOT ERRONEOUS. 12. SO FAR THE VERIFICATION OF LABOUR CHARGES OF RS .26,25,000/- IS CONCERNED, WE NOTE THAT AS PER ORDER SHEET OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, THE ASSESSEE`S AR APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND THE AO HAS DISCUSSED WIT H THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBSEQUENTLY ISS UED STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 142(1) DATED 16.11.2016 ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE OF HEARIN G DATED 28.04.2016. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 142(1), THE ASSESSEE`S A R APPEARED AND FILED BEFORE THE AO THE COPY OF INCOME TAX, BANK DETAILS, COMMISSION DETAILS, AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.3CB AND 3CD, PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET, COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED, AND DETAILS OF SUNDRY DEBTORS AND CREDITORS. IN SUBSEQUENT DATES, THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE REQ UIRED DETAILS AS SOUGHT BY NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. ON 02.12.2016, VIDE O RDER SHEET, OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF LABO UR CHARGES OF RS.26,25,000/- AND ASSESSING OFFICER DISCUSSED IN DETAILED ABOUT T HE LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.26,25,000/- AND THEN FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONDUCTED SUFFICIENT INQUIRY AS ALLEGED BY THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE. IT IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF INQUIRY ALSO, AS THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE NECESSARY ENQUIRY DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY CONDUCTING TEN HEARINGS, VIDE ORDER DATED 05.12.2016. THEREFORE, SO FAR LABO UR CHARGES IS CONCERNED, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CANNOT BE TR EATED ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 13. NOW COMING TO THE INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL BY ON E OF THE PARTNERS, SMT. MANUSHREE CHAKRABORTY, WE NOTE THAT AS PER ORDER S HEET OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE`S AR APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND EXPLAINED THE INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL WITH RELEVANT EVIDENCES, VI DE ORDER SHEET DATED 14.06.2016. THE ASSESSEES AR ALSO PRODUCED THE PAR TNERSHIP DEED AND BALANCE SHEET BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISCUSSED TH E CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY SMT. ITA NO.791/KOL/2019 M/S ZENITH FISH CORPORATION 8 MANUSHREE CHAKRABORTY (ONE OF THE PARTNERS) AND HAV ING DISCUSSED THE MATTER IN DETAIL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER. THE REFORE, ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS COUNT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS A LACK OF ENQUIRY ON HIS PART. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE CAPITA L INTRODUCED BY PARTNER AND LABOUR CHARGES AND HAVING EXAMINED THE RELEVANT DOC UMENTS, HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNER I S GENUINE, THEREFORE IT IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. BASED ON THE FACTUAL POSITION NARRATED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AS SESSING OFFICER HAS SCRUTINIZED EVERY ASPECT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY PARTNER AND L ABOUR CHARGES BY CONDUCTING TEN HEARINGS, THEREFORE THE ALLEGATION OF THE LD DR THAT AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED AND LABOUR CHARGES BY CONDUCTING SUFFICIENT HEARINGS IS BASELESS. 14. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND JUDICIAL P RONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON, IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S . 143(3) DATED 05.12.2016 WAS PASSED AFTER CALLING FOR RELEVANT INFORMATION AND A FTER DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE SAME. THE AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER CALLING FOR DETAILS ON THE ISSUE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY AND DOCUMENTS AND AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE SAME AND AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND PASSED THE A SSESSMENT ORDER, SO IT CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER EST OF THE REVENUE. SO, THE LD. CITS FINDING FAULT WITH THE ORDER OF THE AO IS ERR ONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF INQUI RY HAS TO FAIL. THEREFORE, AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS PERTINENT TO MEN TION HERE THAT THE WAY IN WHICH ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE FINALIZED FALLS IN THE EXCLUSI VE DOMAIN OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SECTION 142(1) SPEAKS OF INQUIRY BEFORE AS SESSMENT AND GIVES IMMENSE POWER TO THE A.O. FOR CONDUCTING ENQUIRY. THEREFORE , THE A.O. U/S 142(1)(II) & (III) CAN ASK THE ASSESSEE ALMOST ANY INFORMATION W HICH HE THINK NECESSARY FOR PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONDUCTED A DETAILED SCRUTINY AND THOROUGH ENQUIRY IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL INTRODUC ED AND LABOUR CHARGES. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE , WE NOTE THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF INADEQUATE SCRUTINY AS NOTED BY THE LD CIT IN HI S ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.791/KOL/2019 M/S ZENITH FISH CORPORATION 9 THEREFORE, ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS NEITHER ERRONE OUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 15. WE NOTE THAT IT IS WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THAT WHICH POINTS HE WANTS TO TAKE UP FOR ENQUIRY AND TO WHAT EXTENT AND, AS SUCH, THE LD. C.I.T. CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THE SAME AND EVEN IF LD. COMMISSIONER HAS SUCH RESULTS OF ENQUIRIES, THE RESULTANT ORDER CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO REVISION PROCEEDING. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF THE CONTEXT TO STATE THAT THE IMPUGNED SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS NOT FOR R EASON OF ANY INFORMATION, SEARCH RESULT AND DIRECTIONS FROM HIGHER AUTHORITIE S, INASMUCH AS NOTHING HAS BEEN RECORDED TO THAT EFFECT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS A MATTER OF NORMAL PROCEDURE, THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSES SMENT. THE OBJECTIVE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) IS TO CONFIRM THAT THE TAXPAYER HAS NOT UNDERSTATED THE INCOME OR HAS NOT COMPUTED EXCESSIVE LOSS OR HA D NOT UNDERPAID THE TAX IN ANY MANNER. TO CONFIRM THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CARRIED OUT A DETAILED SCRUTINY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME, AS DEEMED FIT, AN D SATISFIED HIMSELF REGARDING VARIOUS CLAIMS, DEDUCTIONS ETC. MADE BY AN ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD. PCIT HAS SUBJECTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO PROC EEDING U/S. 263 OF THE ACT MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A .O. AMOUNTS TO INADEQUATE SCRUTINY OF LABOUR CHARGES AND CAPITAL INTRODUCED B Y PARTNER. AFTER CONDUCTING TEN HEARINGS AND DISCUSSING THE MATTERS WITH THE A.R. O N SEVERAL DATES AND RECEIVING REQUISITE INFORMATION/EVIDENCES IN RESPONSE TO NOTI CES U/S.142( 1) OF THE ACT, THE LD. A.O. WAS SATISFIED ON HIS OWN PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED AND LABOUR CHARGES. THERE FORE, THE EXERCISE AIMED AT ASCERTAINING THE CORRECT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FULFILLED BY THE LD. A.O. BY EXERCISING HIS QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS VIS-A-VI S PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, CERTAINLY IT IS NOT A CASE WHEREIN ADEQUATE ENQUIRIES AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE WERE NOT CARRIED OUT OR ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN HASTE. HOWEVER, WHAT IS AN OPINION FORMED AS A RESU LT OF THESE ENQUIRIES AND VERIFICATION OF THE MATERIALS IS SOMETHING WHICH IS IN EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND EVEN IF COMMISSIONER DOES NO T AGREE WITH THE RESULTS OF ITA NO.791/KOL/2019 M/S ZENITH FISH CORPORATION 10 SUCH ENQUIRIES, THE RESULTANT ORDER CANNOT BE SUBJE CTED TO REVISION PROCEEDINGS. FOR THIS, WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BEN CH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. JUTHIKA KAR VS. ITO [I.T.A. NO.1128/KOL/200 9, DATED 16.5.2012], WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER :- '8. WITH THE LEAVE AND CONSENT OF MY LEARNED BROTHE R, HOWEVER, I MAY ADD A FEW WORDS TO MY LEARNED BROTHER'S ANALYSIS OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GEE VEE ENTERPRISES (SUPRA). UNDOUBTEDLY, AS NOTED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS IN THAT CA SE, AN ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT REMAIN PASSIVE IN THE FACE OF A RETU RN WHICH IS APPARENTLY IN ORDER BUT CALLS FOR FURTHER ENQUIRY. IN SUCH A C ASE, REVISION PROCEEDINGS CAN INDEED BE INITIATED AND THERE SEEMS TO BE NO SERIOUS CONTROVERSY IN THIS RESPECT. THE FINE POINT, HOWEVE R, ONE MUST BEAR IN MIND IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADEQUATE ENQUIRIES NOT HAVING BEEN CONDUCTED AND THE RESULT OF SUCH ENQUIRIES NOT HAVI NG BEEN DEALT WITH BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER OR NOT HAVING RESULTED IN T HE CONCLUSION THAT COULD BE, IN THE WISDOM OF A PERSON OTHER THAN THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MORE APPROPRIATE. HERE IS A CASE IN WHICH SUFFICIEN T ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED. AS LEARNED BROTHER HAS RIGHTLY NOTED, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR SPECIFIC DETAILS, CONFIRMATIONS AND EVEN COPIES OF BILLS. IT COULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE SAID THAT SUFFICIENT ENQUIRIES W ERE NOT CONDUCTED. HOWEVER, WHAT IS OPINION FORMED AS A RESULT OF THES E ENQUIRIES IS SOMETHING WHICH IS IN EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER, AND EVEN IF COMMISSIONER HAS SUCH RESULTS OF ENQUIRIES, THE RESULTANT ORDER CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO REVISION PROCEEDINGS. THE CONCLUSIO NS ARRIVED AT AS A RESULT OF ENQUIRIES CANNOT BE TINKERED WITH IN THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS. THE CONCLUSIONS BEING DRAWN UP AS A RESULT OF ENQUI RY IS A HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE EXERCISE AND AS TO WHAT IS APPROPRIATE C ONCLUSION IS SOMETHING ON WHICH PERCEPTIONS VARY FROM PERSON TO PERSONS. THESE VARIATIONS IN THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER VIS-A-VIS THAT OF THE COMMISSIONER, CANNOT RENDER AN ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 9. VIEWED IN THIS PERSPECTIVE, AND HAVING NOTED THA T THE COMMISSIONER HAS SUBJECTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAINLY ON THE GR OUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REACH THE RIGHT CONCLUSIO NS AS A RESULT OF HIS ENQUIRY, THE IMPUGNED REVISION ORDER IS INDEED UNSU STAINABLE IN LAW. IT IS NOT A CASE IN WHICH ADEQUATE ENQUIRIES HAS NOT BEEN CARRIED OUT. ' AT THE COST OF REPETITION, WE STATE THAT AFTER THOR OUGH EXAMINATIONS OF THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE (IN RESPECT OF LABOUR CHARGES AND CAPITAL INTRODUCED), AS PER REQUISITIONS SOUGHT BY THE A.O. AND AS DEEMED FIT FOR COMPUTING THE TRUE T AXABLE INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE OF INADEQUATE ITA NO.791/KOL/2019 M/S ZENITH FISH CORPORATION 11 SCRUTINY HENCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS NEITHE R ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, THEREFORE, WE QUASH THE OR DER PASSED BY LD PCIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18/12/2 019. SD/- (A. T. VARKEY) SD/- (A. L. SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA; DATED: 18/12/2019 RS, SR.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT- M/S ZENITH FISH CORPORATION 2. / THE RESPONDENT.- PR. CIT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. ! $$% , % 6. ( / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//