Dismissed

Pcit Rohtak v. Ms Din Dayal Purushotam Lal

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Dec 2024ITA/110/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Income tax appeals were dismissed as the High Court found no merit in challenging the ITAT order. The Court held that Section 263 power is not sustainable where the Assessing Officer has conducted a detailed enquiry, as the order cannot be termed erroneous merely because a different view was taken.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pcit Rohtak Vs Ms Din Dayal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

ITA-110-2024(O&M) and connected case Page 1 of 4

¶2

106 (2 cases)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Date of Decision: 16.12.2024

¶5

¶6

ITA-110-2024 (O&M)

¶7

PRINCIPAL C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK . . . . Appellan t Vs.

¶8

M/S DIN DA Y AL PURUSHOTAM LAL

. . . . Responden t

****

ITA-112-2024 (O&M)

¶13

PRINCIPAL C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

¶14

. . . . Appellan t Vs.

¶15

M/S DIN DA Y AL PURUSHOTAM LAL

¶16

. . . . Responden t

¶17

****

¶18

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

¶19

Present: M s. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Stan d ing Counsel (through VC) f or the appellant/Revenue.

¶20

¶21

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

¶22

CM-15510-CII-2024 and CM-15690-CII-2024

¶23

A pplications for condonation o f delay of 18 days in filing o f

¶24

respective ap p eals are allowed, and accordin g ly delay is condoned.

¶25

Main cases

¶26

The R e venue is in appeal assailing the order of the Income Ta x

¶27

Appell a te Tribunal (ITAT), whereby it decided by a common order i n ITA A p peals for AYs: 2011-12, 2015-1 6 and 2017-18.

¶28

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.17 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

ITA-110-2024(O&M) and connected case Page 2 of 4

¶30

The R e venue has filed two appeals a n d has raised questions stated t o be su b stantial questions of law th a t the ITAT was not right i n cancelling the order of the Pr.CIT p a ssed under section 263 of th e Incom e Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the A c t’).

¶31

We ha v e carefully gone through the d etailed judgment passed by th e ITAT w ho has reached to the conclus i on after considering the law a s settled by this Court with regard to t h e powers to be exercised unde r section 263 of the Act. It has looked into the entire record and ha d reache d to the conclusion that the As s essing Officer (for short ‘AO’ ) had co n ducted a detailed enquiry and e xamined the books of account s as wel l as queries had been particular l y raised relating to the issue o f deletio n s having been made by the con c erned AO. After examining th e books, the AO has added income in ter m s of the books of accounts an d after h a ving looked into the bank acco u nts where the amounts found t o have b e en deposited, it reached to the c onclusion.

¶32

The S up reme Court in Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. vs CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) has held as under:

¶33

“6. A bare reading of this p rovision makes it clear t h at the pre-requisite to exercise of jurisdiction by the C ommissioner suo moto under it, is that the order of the I ncome-tax Officer is erroneous in s ofar as it is prejudicial t o the interests of the revenue. The Commissioner has to be s atisfied of twin conditions, nam e ly, (i) the order of the A ssessing Officer sought to be re v ised is erroneous; and ( ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If one of t h em is absent - if the order of t h e Income-tax Officer is e rroneous but is not prejudicial to t he revenue or if it is not

¶34

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.17 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

ITA-110-2024(O&M) and connected case Page 3 of 4

¶36

e rroneous but is prejudicial to t he revenue - recourse c annot be had to Section 263(1) of t he Act. 7. There can be no doubt t h at the provision cannot b e invoked to correct each and e v ery type of mistake or e rror committed by the Assessing Officer; it is only when a n order is erroneous that the sect i on will be attracted. An i n correct assumption of facts or an incorrect application of l a w will satisfy the requireme n t of the order being e rroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without a pplying the principles of natu r al justice or without a pplication of mind.”

¶37

We are of firm view that the power co n tained under section 263 of th e Act ca n be exercised only with respec t to cases where it is found tha t the A O has not conducted the enquir y , and resultantly, loss has bee n caused to the department. Sine qua no n is that the assessment order ha s to be e r roneous so far as it is prejudici a l to the interest of the Revenue , and fo r the said purpose, a finding h a s to be arrived that no enquir y was do n e. If there are two views availa b le for the AO to take a decisio n after c o nducting enquiry, it cannot be said that the decision taken b y the A O would be erroneous, and the C IT could not have turned asid e the or d er of the AO on the said count that a different decision shoul d have b e en taken by the AO.

¶38

We ar e satisfied that there has been no undue haste by the AO i n condu c ting the enquiry. All the docu m ents have been looked into b y the IT A T and a detailed judgment has been passed on facts of the case.

¶39

Thus, w e find that the power of revi s ion as exercised by the Pr.CI T under s ection 263 of the Act, being d ifferent from the powers to b e

¶40

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.17 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

ITA-110-2024(O&M) and connected case Page 4 of 4

¶42

exercised in appeal, is not sustainable in law. The order passed by th e

¶43

ITAT, t herefore, does not warrant a n y interference. No substantia l question of law is required to be exami n ed by us in the present appeals . Accor d ingly, we do not find any merits in the present appeals.

¶44

Appea l s are dismissed accordingly.

¶45

All pe n ding applications also stand dis p osed of.

¶46

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶47

(SANJAY VASHISTH)

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

December 16, 2024

¶50

Mohit goyal

¶51

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable?

¶52

Yes/No Yes/No

¶53

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.17 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pcit Rohtak v. Ms Din Dayal Purushotam Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pcit Rohtak v. Ms Din Dayal Purushotam Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Hoshiarpur Large & Medium Industries Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ruchi Arora Vs Income Tax Officer

Sanjay Bansal Vs Union of India and Others

Rajni Jain Vs Income Tax Officer and Others

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Rohtak Vs M/S Din Dayal Purushotam Lal

Guru Nanak Travels Vs the State Transport Commissioner and Others