Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 277 (GAU)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parasmal Jain

2012-02-29

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, PRASANTA KUMAR SAIKIA

body2012
JUDGMENT A.K. Goel, C.J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 against the order of the Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati dt. 22nd Aug., 2007 passed in ITA No. 92/Gau/2006 for the asst. yr. 2004-05. In the course of assessment for the assessment year in question, the AO allowed the claim of the assessee for long-term capital gain under s. 54F of the Act which arose from sale of 4,000 shares. The shares were purchased on 26th Sept., 2002 @ Rs. 5.52 per share and the same were sold on 18th Dec, 2003 @ Rs. 99.50 per share. 2. The CIT, exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act, holding that the view taken by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In view of the unusual increase in the prices of shares within a short period of 15 months, the AO was required to apply his mind as to the genuineness of the prices at which the shares were allegedly purchased and sold. The shares did not belong to any well-known company and purchase price was paid by the assessee in cash. The identity of the person from whom the shares were purchased and the identity of the person to whom the shares were sold was not disclosed. 3. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the revisional order on the ground that there were as many as seven hearings before the AO and the AO scrutinized the details. In such circumstances, the exercise of jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act was not called for. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has preferred this appeal which was admitted for consideration on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and correct in law in cancelling the order of the CIT dt. 23rd Aug., 2006 passed under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961? 5. This appeal was tagged for consideration with IT Appeal No. 2 of 2008 wherein question of scope of jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act had been referred to a Full Bench. 6. The Full Bench considered the matter vide judgment dt. 23rd Aug., 2006 passed under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961? 5. This appeal was tagged for consideration with IT Appeal No. 2 of 2008 wherein question of scope of jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act had been referred to a Full Bench. 6. The Full Bench considered the matter vide judgment dt. 7th Feb., 2012 [reported as CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 247 CTR (Gau)(FB) 473 : (2012) 67 DTR (Gau)(FB) 217--Ed.] and held that jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act could be exercised whenever it was found that the order of the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. A wrong assumption of fact, incorrect application of law and non-application of mind were also covered within the scope of s. 263 of the Act, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in CIT vs. Daga Entrade (P) Ltd. (2010) 236 CTR (Gau) 296 : (2010) 47 DTR (Gau) 218 : (2010) 327 ITR 467 (Gau). The view earlier taken in Rajendra Singh vs. Superintendent of Taxes & Ors. (1990) 79 STC 10 (Gau) that jurisdiction under s. 263 could be exercised only in cases of jurisdictional error was explained to the effect that the expression "Jurisdictional error" was used in wider sense as including error on account of wrong assumption of fact, incorrect application of law and non-application of mind. The matter was, accordingly, directed to be placed before the Division Bench. 7. IT Appeal No. 2 of 2008 [reported at CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 249 CTR (Gau) 529 : (2012) 70 DTR (Gau) 208--Ed.], has been disposed of today by a separate order, holding that exercise of jurisdiction by the CIT under s. 263 of the Act was valid. Relevant observations therein are : No doubt, mere different opinion was not enough for an order being termed as 'erroneous' but the finding of the CIT shows that the order of AO suffered from non-application of mind. Distinction in cases where the AO takes a view after applying mind as per settled norms and cases where settled norms are ignored and assessment is made is well known. While in former, revisional jurisdiction may not be exercised, in latter it can certainly be exercised. Present case clearly falls in second category. Distinction in cases where the AO takes a view after applying mind as per settled norms and cases where settled norms are ignored and assessment is made is well known. While in former, revisional jurisdiction may not be exercised, in latter it can certainly be exercised. Present case clearly falls in second category. Whether or not exercise of revisional jurisdiction was called for is a question of law, on a given fact situation. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee. Learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to assist the Court as he says that he is not ready. 9. In the present case, the assessee claimed capital gain arising out of sale of shares. The shares were purchased on 26th Sept., 2002 and sold on 18th Dec, 2003. As already mentioned above, the purchase of the shares was made at Rs. 5.52 per share and the same were sold at Rs. 99.50 per share after about 15 months. The shares belong to Sangotricons Ltd. which is not a very well known company. The AO, in its order, did not discuss the matter at all. The CIT, interfered with the order of the AO with the following observations: 4. I have considered the facts of the case. In my view, there was an error in approach as also in appraisal of the facts, which led to an error in computation as well. The basic enquires, which an AO is expected to make in these circumstances, were omitted to be made in this case. The AO should have enquired about the existence of the company and obtained its complete address and telephone numbers. He should also have obtained the annual accounts of the company as on 31st March, 2003 and 31st March, 2004 so as to satisfy himself if the commercial activities of the company justified such a jump in the prices of shares. The price quotations of the shares on various dates during the check-period should also have been examined to ascertain the reasonableness of the jump. What was more important is that the AO should have obtained the details of the previous holder and examined the genuineness of the alleged cash transaction. The broker named Shri Rajendra Prasad Shah should have been examined and his books of account should have been scrutinized. What was more important is that the AO should have obtained the details of the previous holder and examined the genuineness of the alleged cash transaction. The broker named Shri Rajendra Prasad Shah should have been examined and his books of account should have been scrutinized. The details of the ultimate purchaser should also have been obtained and the sources of his payments should have been verified with reference to his bank account. The brokers, the seller, the purchaser and the assessee himself should have been separately examined by the AO. These enquiries were a must for obviating the possibility of secreted income having been introduced for acquiring real estate. In short, the genuineness of the transactions was not established in this case, which is the sine qua non for acceptance of the claim of deduction under s. 54F in a case like this. 10. The Tribunal held the same to be erroneous as follows : 5. I have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. In this case, in response to notices issued under ss. 143(2) and 142(1), the assessee appeared and explained the return and claims made thereunder with details as called for. From the assessment order it is evident that there were as many as 7 hearings the AO took and after hearing the assessee and scrutinizing the details required by him, the AO completed the assessment at figure of Rs. 84,882. The impugned case is a small one on which very meager revenue is involved. The investigation expected from an AO would depend on the volume of business and quantum of income. When a small case is fixed and the AO calls for details, examines the same and passes a brief order accepting the returned income, that would not lead to treat the order as erroneous. It is not the case of the CIT that the claim made by the assessee is not in accordance with law. The only objection of the CIT was that the AO before allowing such claim did not call for and examined the details which, according to the CIT, were required to adopt the right view. To reiterate, the AO after hearing the assessee on several occasions and examining the details requisitioned by him framed the assessment under s. 143(3) of the Act. 11. To reiterate, the AO after hearing the assessee on several occasions and examining the details requisitioned by him framed the assessment under s. 143(3) of the Act. 11. Learned counsel for the assessee supports the view taken by the Tribunal by submitting that the finding recorded by the Tribunal was a finding of fact which was not challenged as perverse by the Revenue. It was also submitted that merely because the AO should have gone deeper into the matter or should have made more elaborate discussion could not be a ground for exercising of jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81 : (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2010) 40 DTR (Bom) 61 : (2010) 323 ITR 206 (Bom) and judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 180 (Del) and judgment of High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CIT vs. Unique Autofelts (P) Ltd. (2009) 30 DTR (P&H) 231. 12. We are of the view that the CIT was justified in exercising his jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act and the Tribunal committed patent error of law. 13. It is well-settled that jurisdiction under s. 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Merely because a different view could be taken on a debatable issue may not be enough to hold that the order was erroneous. However, if the order of the AO was based on wrong assumption of facts, incorrect application of law or non-application of mind, interference was certainly permissible. Reference may be made to the decision of the Full Bench referred to above, relying on the earlier judgments, including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1: (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). 14. The present case is not a case where the CIT has sought to substitute his opinion for that of the AO but a case where the order of the AO suffers from non-application of mind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1: (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). 14. The present case is not a case where the CIT has sought to substitute his opinion for that of the AO but a case where the order of the AO suffers from non-application of mind. The AO failed to make basic enquiry required to be made when there was unusual increase of prices of shares purchased by the assessee by cash and the identity of the persons from whom the shares were purchased and to whom the shares were sold, was not ascertained nor the broker examined. The shares were not of well known company and possibility of undisclosed income being introduced in the form of capital gain was not ruled out. Thus, the case was clearly within the purview of exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction. The observations of the Tribunal that since as many as 7 hearings had taken place and that the CIT could not have raised an objection to the manner of assessment, are unsustainable in law and not warranted by legal requirement under s. 263 of the Act for exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction. Judgments relied upon on behalf of the assessee are distinguishable on facts. Thus, the substantial question of law raised is answered in favour of the Revenue.