Commissioner of Income Tax vs Pradeep Kumar Ganediwal

Heard Shri A. P. Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant on admission.

This appeal has been preferred, at the instance of the Revenue, u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), against the order dated April 17, 2001, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, whereby the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax exercising powers u/s 263 of the Act, has been allowed.

Initially, the assessment of the respondent-assessee was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, showing nil income with certain agricultural income only vide order of the Income Tax Officer dated March 31, 1994. The assessee thought it fit to file revised return declaring total income at Rs. 8,70,000 and reduced the agricultural income by this amount. With an intention to regularise the revised return, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. After making detailed enquiry with respect to the agricultural income shown by the assessee, an order was passed on March 29, 1996. On scrutiny, the said assessment order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue by the Commissioner of Income Tax on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not make proper enquiry, which he should have made for determining the correct total income of the assessee and also for not imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently and in the result the Commissioner of Income Tax issued a notice to the assessee u/s 263 of the Act. After obtaining the comments of the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax set aside the assessment order with direction to make the assessment de novo for determining the proper non-agricultural income and to initiate proceedings for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with law.

The said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax was the subject-matter of challenge before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which passed the impugned order.

After having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of the record, we find no merit or substance in the appeal. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that after detailed enquiry made by the Assessing Officer, the proceedings for assessment were completed and no illegality could be pointed out on the revised return. It has also been recorded that since the asscssee had voluntarily surrendered a particular income to buy peace with the Department, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. After critically examining the impugned order, we find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Findings of fact recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are not subject to challenge in this appeal. Thus, the appeal being without merit or substance, is hereby dismissed.