M/s Sree Satya Sai Transport, Warangal V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kothagudem

ITA 996/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 99622514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G APARNA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: G MANIKYA PRASAD
• Section: 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B'(SMC), HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.996/HYD/14 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 M/S. SREE SATYA SAI TRANSPORT, K OTHAGUDEM (PAN ABTES 8147 A) V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1, K OTHAGUDEM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S HRI G.MANIKYA PRASAD RESPONDENT BY : SMT. G.APARNA RAO DATE OF HEARING 27 .0 3 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08.04.2015 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, VIJAYAWADA DATED 27.3.2104 PASSED UNDER S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHICH IS ENG AG ED IN TH E BUSIN ES S OF TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR. THE RETURN OF IN C OM E FOR THE YEAR UN D ER CON S I D ERATION W A S FILED BY IT ON 20.9.2009 DECL A RING TOTAL IN C OM E OF R S .1,53,890. DURIN G TH E COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE BOOKS OF AC C OUN T AND OTH E R SUPPORTING DO CUM E N T S MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . O N SUCH VERI F I CA T I ON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE BULK OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUPPO R TED BY PROPER VOUCH E RS/B I LLS AND TH ERE FORE, THE GENUIN E NESS AND QUANTUM O F EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS AUTHENTICITY OF THE SAID BOOKS O F ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY T H E ASSESSEE WAS NO T VERIFIABLE. HE TH E R EF ORE, REJECTE D T H E BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIM A TED THE IN C OM E O F TH E AS SESSEE F R OM THE BU S IN E SS O F TRANSPORT CONTRACTS BY APPLYING A NET PROFIT ITA NO.9 96 /HYD/2014 M/S. SREE SATYA SAI TRANSPORT, KOTHAGUDEM 2 RATE OF 10% TO THE GROSS RECEIP T S OF R S .56,75,546 SUBJ E CT TO THE DEDUCTIONS TOWARDS REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS AND INTEREST ON PARTN E RS CAPITAL. ACCO RDI NGLY, THE TOTAL IN C OM E O F THE AS SESSEE W AS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.3,14,340 IN TH E ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UN D ER S.143(3) VIDE OR D ER DATED 31.5.2011. 3. THE RECORD OF TH E ASSESSMENT SUBSEQUENTLY CAME TO BE EXAMINED BY TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX AND ON SUCH EXAMINATION, H E FOUND THAT HUGE AMOUNTS WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOU S PERSONS OTHER THAN ITS PARTNERS F R OM THE BANK AC C OUN T MAIN T AINED WITH ANDHRA BANK, MANUGURU, WHICH ATTRACTED THE PROV I SION S OF S.40A(3) OF THE AC T. HE ALSO FOUN D TH A T HUGE W ITHDRAWALS WERE MADE BY THE P A RTNERS OF TH E ASSESSEE FIRM FROM THE SAID ACCOUNT. ACCO RD ING TO HIM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HO W EVER , HAD NO T CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RELE V ANT DETAILS IN RESPECT OF TH E SE TR A N S A C TION S REFLECTED IN THE BA N K AC C OUN T OF THE ASS ESSEE WITH AN D HRA BANK, M ANUGURU BRANCH. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER TH E R EF ORE, ISSUED CAUSE NOTICE U N DER S.263 REQU I RING THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY SUCH ORDER SHOU L D NOT B E CONSIDERED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND R E VI S ED UN D ER S.263. I N REPLY, THE RELEVANT DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE B E FORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER WHICH ACCORDING TO THE LAT T ER, REVEAL THAT THERE WERE FOLLOWING TWO MORE ISSUES WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO EXAMINE - (A ) P ARTNERS WITHDRAWALS ARE INSUFFICIENT (B) HUGE PAYM E N T S ARE MADE TO S/ SHRI PITCHAIAH, K.SRINIVASA RAO, VIDYASAGAR, SUDHAKAR, NAVEEN ETC, AS REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT. ITA NO.9 96 /HYD/2014 M/S. SREE SATYA SAI TRANSPORT, KOTHAGUDEM 3 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER TH E R E F O RE, ISSUED A FURTHER NOTICE REQ UIRIN G THE ASSESSEE TO OFFER I T S EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE AB OVE TWO ISSUES. IN REPLY, A L E TT E R DATED 25.1.2014 W A S FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE OFFERING ITS EXPLAN A TION AS UN D ER - 'DOMESTIC DRAWING O{THE PARTNERS: IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PARTNERS SRI MOHAMMED RAFT AND' SHAIK BEEBIJAN HAPPENED TO BE THE COUPLE AND THE AGGREGATE DRAWINGS MADE BY THEM AMOUNTED TO R S .25,OOO I - . THEY GOT ONL Y ONE SON. AS PER THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FILED BY HIM HIS WIFE UNDERTAKES TAILORING AND EARNS ABOUT RS.80,OOO PA . IN THE C IRCUMSTANCES, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE DOMESTIC DRAWINGS MAY BE TREATED AS REASONABLE. IN RELATION TO THE OTHER PARTNER VIZ., SRI A BDUL AZAD KALAM, IT IS REPORTED BY SRI T.MD.RAFI THAT AZAD KALAM IS HIS OWN BROTHER AND THAT HE EARNS A MONTHLY SALARY OF RS.10,OOO . IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE DRAWINGS REPORTED B Y HIM MAY BE TREATED AS ADEQUATE. IN RELATION TO THE OT HER PARTNER, SRI P.SRINIVASA RAO, HE WITHDREW RS.15,OOO PA DURING THE YEAR FROM THE ABOVE SAID FIRM AND BESIDES THE SAME, HE ALSO EARNS ABOUT RS.10,OOO PM. HENCE, HIS DRAWINGS MAY KINDLY BE TREATED AS ADEQUATE. IN THE RELATION TO THE OTHER PARTNER SRI P . VENKATA RAMANA ALSO WITHDREW FROM THE ABOVE SAID FIRM TO THE EXTENT OF RS.15,OOO PA AND HE IS AN AGRICULTURIST, HOLDING ABOUT 2 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HENCE HIS DRAWINGS MAY KINDLY BE TREATED AS ADEQUATE. . ; FURTHER, IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO POINT OUT THAT AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.L,53,890 1 - , THE ID. AD DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 3110512011 AT RS.3, 14,3401 - AND THE ABOVE ASST. ORDER REACHED THE STAGE OF FIN ALITY. THUS, IF STILL IT IS LEFT THAT THE DRAWINGS ARE INADEQUATE, IT IS EARNESTLY PRAYED THAT TAKING NOTE OF THE ASSESSEE INCOME, THE ELEMENT OF TELESCOPING FOR THE NOTIONAL DIFFERENCE, IF ANY, MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED. HUGE PAYMENTS EXISTS IN THE CASE OF SRI PICHAI. K.SRINIVAS RAO,. VIDVASAGAR, SUDHAKAR, NAVEEN ETG .. ' IT IS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING HELD ON 23 RD THAT THERE EXISTED HUGE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO THE ABOVE PERSONS AND DIRECTED TO EXPLAIN TH E NATURE OF THE PAYMENTS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ALL OF THEM HAPPENED TO BE LORRY OWNERS AND THEY INDIVIDUALLY GOT ONE OR TWO VEHICLES. THE PAYMENTS REFERRED TO BY THE LD.CIT REPRESENT FREIGHT CHARGES PAID AND IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AS A MEASURE OF CONVENIE NCE, THE ASSESSEE USED TO IDENTIFY THE FREIGHTS PAYABLE TO THE LORRY OWNERS ON EACH OCCASION AND HE RECORDS THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS IN THE BILL BOOK. TO ANALYZE THE FREIGHT S PAYABLE TO EACH OWNER ARE RECORDED IN THE ABOVE BOOK. BUT, HOWEVER , THE CHEQUES ARE GIVEN TO A PARTICULAR OWNER WHO APPROACHED HIM COVERING THE AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO HIM AND ALSO TU THE ITA NO.9 96 /HYD/2014 M/S. SREE SATYA SAI TRANSPORT, KOTHAGUDEM 4 OTHER OWNERS WHO AS AN ASSOCIATION WITH HIM, FOR DISBURSEMENT AMONG THEMSELVES. IN THIS PATTERN SRI PITCHAIAH, SRINIVASA RAO AND OTHERS GOT LUMP SUM PAYMENTS. BUT SUCH PAYMENTS ARE NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEM ALONE, AS THE SAME BELONGED TO A GROUP OF VEHICLE OWNERS. IT IS REITERATE AND SUBMIT ALL THE ABOVE PAYMENTS REPRESENTS FREIGHT CHARGES PAYABLE TO DIFFERENT LORRY OWNER S WHOSE VEHICLES ARE UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TRANSPORTATION. IN THE ABOVE FACTUAL BACKGROUND, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THIS ISSUE MAY KINDLY BE TAKEN OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AS SUCH PAYMENTS DID NOT BELONG TO A SINGLE OWNER BUT BELONGS TO A GROUP OF PERSONS AND THIS PATTERN OF DISBURSEMENTS IS ADOPTED AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE.' 5. THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER. ACCORD I NG TO HIM, THE DRAWINGS SHOWN BY THE P A RTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WERE NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE V OLUME OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE COST OF LIVING THAT IS JUSTIFIABLY R EQUIRED FOR PERSONS RUNNING SUCH VOLUME OF BUSIN E SS. HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HO WE VER , FAIL E D TO EXAMIN E THIS ASP EC T BY CALLING THE REL E VANT DETAILS. IN THI S REGARD, H E ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HIGHER INCOME OF THE FIRM ESTIM A TED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AVAILABLE TO TELESCO P E THE DRAWINGS ALLEGEDLY SHOWN BY ITS PARTNERS. AS REGARDS THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PAYM E N T S MADE TO SHRI PITCHAIAH, SHRI K.S R INIVAS A R A O, VIDYASAGAR , SUDHAKAR, NAVEEN ETC. THAT THE SAME CON S T I TUTED LORRY FREIGHT CHARGES MADE TO GROUP OF PERSONS IN THE TR A N S PO R T BU S IN E SS , T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX DID NO T ACCEPT THE SAME IN TH E ABSENCE O F THE REL E VA N T DETAILS FIL E D BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT AND SU BSTANTIATE IT . HE HELD THAT BOTH TH E SE ISSUES WERE NOT PROP E RLY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY MAKING PROP E R AND SUF F I C IENT ENQUIR IE S AND THIS LACK OF ENQUIRY MADE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UN D ER S.143(3 ) ERRONEOU S AS WELL AS PREJUDICI A L TO TH E INTERESTS OF R E VENUE. AC C OR DING LY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UN D ER ITA NO.9 96 /HYD/2014 M/S. SREE SATYA SAI TRANSPORT, KOTHAGUDEM 5 S.143(3 ) WAS S ET ASIDE BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER BY EXERCISIN G HIS POWER UN D ER S.263, WITH A DIR E CTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DO TH E SAME DE NOVO A FTER EX A MINING THE ISSUES POINTED OUT BY HIM BY MAKING PRO P ER AND SUFFICIENT ENQUIRIES. AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER PASSED UN D ER S.26 3 , ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL B E FORE THE TRIBUNAL . 6. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED BY TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SIMILAR ISSUE HA D A RISEN BEFORE THE D IVISION B ENCH OF THI S TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF SHANTI TR A N S PO R T V/S. ITO (ITA NO.995/HYD.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) , WHEREIN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UN D ER S .143(3) REJECTING THE BOOK S O F AC C OUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATING THE INCOME BY APPLYING HIGHER RATE NET PROFIT RATE WAS SET ASIDE BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME - TAX BY EXERCI SI N G THE POWERS CONFERRED UN D ER S.26 3 FOR TH E ALL E GED FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT ENQUIRIES ON CERTAIN ISSUES. TH E TRIBUNAL , VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 10.10.2014, HO W E V ER , QUASHED THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER UN D ER S.263 AND RESTORED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UN D ER S.143(3) . THE R E LE V ANT OBSERVATION S RECORDED BY TH E TRIBUNAL IN THI S CON T E X T, AS CONTAINED IN PARA G RA PH 6 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER - 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO APPLIED OUR MIND TO DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY LEARNED AR. AS IS EVIDENT F ROM RECORD, AO IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, AFTER EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER INFORMATIONS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM WAS OF THE VIEW THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED ARE NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE, WHICH ALSO RAISED SUSPICION WITH REGARD TO MAINTENANCE O F BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL AS ITS CORRECTNESS. THEREFORE, BEING OF THE OPINION THAT BOOKS OF ITA NO.9 96 /HYD/2014 M/S. SREE SATYA SAI TRANSPORT, KOTHAGUDEM 6 ACCOUNT ARE NOT VERIFIABLE, AO PROCEEDED TO REJECT THE SAME AND ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE @ 10% ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS. ON A PERUSAL OF REVISION ORDER, WE FIN D THAT CIT IN SPECIFIC TERMS HAS NOT DISAPPROVED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY AO. THE CIT HAS POINTED OUT VARIOUS ISSUES, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM WAS NOT EXAMINED BY AO IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. HOWEVER, WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE FOUN D TO BE NOT RELIABLE AND REJECTED BY AO AND HE INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3), IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD HOW AND WHY AO M/S SHANTI TRANSPORT, KOTHA GUDE M SHOULD HAVE GONE INTO THE SPECIFIC ISSUES ON THE BASIS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FURTHER, CIT HIMSELF HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 5.6 OF THE ORDER THAT THOUGH AO HAS CALLED UPON ASSESSEE IN HIS LETTER DATED 06/01/11 TO FURNISH VARIOUS INFORMATION BUT ASSESSEE DID N OT COMPLY TO THE SAME. IN OUR VIEW, THAT ITSELF IS REASON ENOUGH FOR THE AO TO REJECT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATE THE INCOME. WHEN ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH INFORMATIONS/EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THERE IS NO OTHE R COURSE LEFT OPEN TO AO, BUT, TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATE BASIS. ONCE, AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THERE IS NO NEED TO AGAIN REFER TO THE VERY SAME BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR DECIDING THE INDIVIDUAL ISSUES OF EXPENDITURE/DEDUCTION CLAIMED . THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO INVOKE POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. FURTHER, CIT THOUGH RAISED CERTAIN ISSUES, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM WERE NOT EXAMINED BY AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, BUT, HE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED OR SUBSTANTIATED WITH FACTS AND MATERIALS THAT NON - CONSIDERATION OF THOSE ISSUES HAS ADVERSELY AFFECTED THE INTERESTS AND REVENUE OR HAS MADE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS. WHILE CONDUCTING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, AO IS THE BEST JUDGE OF THE SITUATION AND HAS TO PROCEED FOR COMPLETING ASSESSMENT ACCORDING TO HIS OWN WISDOM. IN THE FACTS OF A GIVEN CASE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM, WHEN THE AO HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE ARE NOT VERIFIABLE, HENCE, PROFIT HAS TO BE ESTIMATED AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD HOW SUCH VIEW OF AO CAN BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT CIT CAN EXERCISE POWER U/S 263 OF T HE ACT ON SATISFACTION OF TWO CONDITIONS CUMULATIVELY, WHICH ARE, THE ORDER PASSED MUST BE ERRONEOUS AND IT MUST BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. THEREFORE, BEFORE REVISING THE ORDER U/S 263, CIT MUST ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS NO T ONLY ERRONEOUS, BUT, HAS ALSO CAUSED PREJUDICE TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ON PERUSAL OF REVISION ORDER, IT APPEARS THAT CIT HIMSELF M/S SHANTI TRANSPORT, KOTHA GUDE M IS NEITHER SURE NOR CERTAIN OR HAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ISSUES ON WHICH HE HAS SOUGHT TO ITA NO.9 96 /HYD/2014 M/S. SREE SATYA SAI TRANSPORT, KOTHAGUDEM 7 REVISE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE RESULTED IN ASSESSMENT OF INCOME AT THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THAT BEING THE CASE, THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 263 CANNOT BE USED AS A TO OL TO START ROVING AND FISHING ENQUIRY. CIT MUST HAVE STRONG MATERIAL/EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM, WHICH COULD INDICATE THAT NON - CONSIDERATION OF THOSE ISSUES HAS NOT ONLY MADE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS, BUT, HAS ALSO CAUSED PREJUDICE TO THE INTERESTS OF REVE NUE. UNLESS THERE ARE MATERIAL TO INDICATE TO THAT EFFECT, ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE EMPOWERING CIT TO REVISE IT U/S 263. IN THIS CONTEXT, A REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON' BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX VS. JYOTHI FOUNDATIONS, 357 ITR 388 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AFTER ANALYZING SEVERAL OTHER DECISIONS HELD THAT IF THE REVISING AUTHORITY FEELS THAT AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED PROPER/ADEQUATE ENQU IRY, THEN, HE HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED ENQUIRY TO RECORD A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS. HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND DIRECTED THE AO TO DO THE SAID ENQUIRY. FURTHER, IN CASE OF CIT VS. RAMESH SING, THE HON'BLE MP HIGH COURT IN JUDGMENT DATED 24/04/2012, HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT AO HAS CONDUCTED ENQUIRY, IT CANNOT BE SET ASIDE/REVISED ONLY BECAUSE THE CIT FEELS THAT ENQUIRY CONDUCTED IS NOT ADEQUATE. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT AO AFTER EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD HAS COME TO A DEFINITE CONCLUSION THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT RELIABLE, HENCE, AFTER REJECTING THE SAME HAS ESTIMATED THE PROFIT. ...... . FURTHER, CIT WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTION, BUT, HAS SIMPLY DIRECTED THE M/S SHANTI TRANSPORT, KOTHA GUDE M AO TO RE - DO THE ASSESSMENT DENOVO AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUES. THIS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IS NOTHING BU T IN THE NATURE OF ROVING AND FISHING ENQUIRY. ..... FOR THIS REASON ALONE, REVISION ORDER BECOMES VULNERABLE AND CAN BE HELD TO BE INVALID. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT EXERCISE OF POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT AND RESTORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7. A PERUSAL OF THE REL E VANT PO R TION OF TH E TRIBUNAL O R DER DATE D 10.10.2014 REPRO D U C ED ABOVE, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE INVOL V ED IN THE P RE SEN T CASE AS WELL AS ALL TH E MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT THERETO ARE SIMIL AR TO TH E CA S E OF M /S. SHANTI TR A NS PORT ITA NO.9 96 /HYD/2014 M/S. SREE SATYA SAI TRANSPORT, KOTHAGUDEM 8 (SUPRA) DECIDED BY THE D I VI SION BENCH OF THI S TRIBUNAL , AND THIS POSITION IS NO T DISPUTED EVEN BY TH E LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. I TH E R E FORE, RESPECTFULLY FO L LOW THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF SHANTI TRANSPORT(SUPRA) AND ACCORDINGLY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPU G N E D ORDER PASS BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER UN D ER S.263 , RESTORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER UN D ER S.143(3). 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8 TH APRIL, 2015 SD/ - ( P.M.JAGTAP ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/ - 8TH APRIL , 201 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. SREE SATYA SAI TRANSPORT, ( KOTHAGUDEM) C/O. M/S. G.S.MADHAVA RAO & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, SUDHARMA BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, WARANGAL., 1 2 . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 KOTHAGUDEM 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, VIJAYAWADA 4. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S