P.V.SREENIJIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue raised in all the above writ petitions filed by two assessees, who are husband and wife, with respect to three assessment years, being 2008 -09, 2009 -10 and 2010 -11, is the legality of the show cause notices issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity "the Act"]. The assessments were completed by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner, by separate orders under Section 263 in the case of each of the assessees for the respective assessment years, sought to revise the assessment orders; produced as Exhibit P7 in all the writ petitions.

(2.) THE factual aspects need not be gone into at this stage. Suffice it to notice that certain expenditure of the assessee, which had not been taken into account by the Assessing Officer as "income" and the allowance of deduction on expenditure far in excess of the income received were the subject matter of all the notices issued. The Commissioner's jurisdiction under Section 263 or rather the palpable lack of it in the subject years is the grievance highlighted.

(3.) THE learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT[(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)] to buttress the aforesaid contention. The meaning of "erroneous" is urged before this Court placing reliance on CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)] and C.I.T. v. Mehrotra Brothers [(2004) 270 ITR 157 (M.P.)]. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on C.I.T. v. EIMCO -K.C.P. Limited [(1984) 147 ITR 603 (Mad.], Rajendra Singh v. Superintendent of Taxes [(1990) 79 STC 10], Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [(1998) 234 ITR 170 (Delhi)], CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [(2009) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] and CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [(2010) 335 ITR 83 (Delhi)].