Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Haryana Coach Body Builders vs Ito on 21 July, 2006
ORDER
Deepak R. Shah, A.M.
1. This appeal by assessee is directed against order of revision under Section 263 of learned CIT, Rohtak dated 29-3-2005. The learned Commissioner held that the assessing officer has passed the order without proper consideration of facts and without making proper, requisite and desired enquiries. As such the order of assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Thus, the assessment order was set aside and the assessing officer was directed to frame a fresh assessment after making proper enquiries.
2. As the name suggests, the assessee is engaged in the business of building body on the chassis. The assessee, during the year built body of the buses on the chassis supplied by two State Government undertaking, namely, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC).
3. The learned Commissioner found that the assessing officer selected the case for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) on the following points:
(a) The details of job work expenses amounting to Rs. 18,16,836 is required to be verified.
(b) Salary paid to partners is found to be excessive.
(c) Credit in the account of partners is required to be examined.
(d) Loans received from friends and relatives, genuineness of cash credit and applicability of Section 269SS/269T is required to be verified.
(e) Sales-tax of Rs. 2,59,522 shown as recoverable under the headloans and advances requires verification.
(f) Valuation of closing stock is required to be checked in view of provisions of Section 145A.
(g) The justification of withdrawal by the partner is required to be seen.
3.1 Learned Commissioner found that in respect of job charges of Rs. 18,16,836, the assessing officer has not made any enquiry from the persons to whom job charges are paid. The addresses of the persons had not been obtained and the genuineness of the payment has not been looked into. The enquiry regarding nature of work done has not been enquired into. He accordingly found that the assessing officer failed to make proper, complete and relevant enquiries in regard to amount paid towards job charges. After considering the reply to the show-cause notice issued, learned Commissioner held that as per the assessment record, it contains only the name of person, type of vouchers (journal or cash) and the amount debited with voucher numbers. There is no mention of addresses or details of services rendered. No confirmation letters from these parties have been obtained. The vouchers of various labourers are identically worded. The assessing officer has not enquired the genuineness of payment made to these parties. Thus, there is failure on the part of the assessing officer to make relevant and requisite enquiries. To that extent, the order passed by assessing officer is erroneous insofar as it is pre-judicial to the interest of revenue.
3.2 The learned Commissioner also found that the claim of deduction of Rs. 2,68,800 as commission has not been properly enquired into by the Assessing officer. The commission is stated to have been paid to Sanjay Shah HUF but the job of collection of cheques from GSRTC was undertaken by Reema Industrial Agencies, Ahmedabad as a licencing agent. When the correspondence is signed by R.C. Shah to Reema Industrial Agencies how and in what circumstances the commission was paid to Sanjay Shah has not been enquired into. The assessing officer has not made enquiry about specific services rendered by these persons and the basis of payment of commission. After considering the reply of assessee, learned Commissioner held that there is failure on the part of the assessing officer to make relevant and requisite enquiries. To that extent, the order of assessing officer is erroneous insofar as it is pre-judicial to the interest of revenue.
3.3 Learned Commissioner also found that even though one-fifth of the car expenses has been disallowed depreciation on the car has not been disallowed in terms of Section 38 of the Act. Though the subject matter of disallowance of vehicle expenses is considered by learned Commissioner (Appeals), the issue regarding disallowance of depreciation was not before Commissioner (Appeals) and to that extent, the same cannot be considered as merged into the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Not considering disallowance of depreciation on car in terms of Section 38 is erroneous insofar as it is pre-judicial to the interest of revenue.
3.4 learned Commissioner also held that the assessing officer has not examined the genuineness of loan received from Smt. Sapna Khurana, Smt. Meenakshi Jain, Smt. Kailash Kumari and Shri Manoj Kumar. The documentary evidence regarding source of advance of Smt. Sapna Khurana has not been enquired into. The evidence of source of deposit into the bank account of the depositor has not been enquired into. Similarly, in respect of amount received of Rs. 2,70,000 from Smt. Meenakshi Jain, the source of deposit is not proved by the creditor. In respect of loan received of Rs. 65,000 from Shri Manoj Kumar, husband of Smt. Meenakshi Jain, the assessing officer has neither enquired into the proof regarding source-from which the amount is advanced nor verified genuineness thereof. Similarly, in respect of amount received from Smt. Kailash Kumari, the assessing officer failed to look into supporting evidence regarding cash deposit prior to issue of cheque. Accordingly, learned Commissioner held that the assessing officer failed to make relevant enquiries regarding deposit in bank account, creditworthiness and genuineness of loan received from these creditors.
3.5 The learned Commissioner found that the assessee has purchased aluminium of Rs. 1,26,97,603 during the year. The assessing officer has obtained copies of account of two parties showing purchase of aluminium of Rs. 90,32,833. The assessing officer has failed to examine the purchase of balance amount. The assessing officer has not obtained the complete address of all the parties from whom the purchases were made nor the assessing officer has made efforts to call for copies of accounts from the books of selling parties vis-a-vis the purchases made by the assessee-firm. To this extent, the assessing officer has failed to make relevant enquiries.
3.6 He accordingly concluded that the assessment order is passed without proper consideration of facts and without making proper, requisite and desired enquiries. To this extent, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He accordingly set aside the entire assessment order with a direction to frame fresh assessment after making proper enquiry in accordance with law. The assessee is in appeal against such order of revision.
4. Learned counsel for assessee Dr. Rakesh Gupta filed a paper book containing 142 pages. He submitted that though the assessment order is passed after making disallowance only in respect of certain expenses, it cannot be considered as either erroneous or pre-judicial to the interest of revenue. The assessing officer firstly issued letter dated 13-12-2002 asking for several details. The questionnaire containing 26 issues, inter alia, asked the assessee to file following details (1) Complete address of all the creditors with photocopies of account including squared up accounts and proof of genuineness of fresh credits.
(2) Complete details of opening and closing stock quantity-wise, quality wise and value-wise.
(3) Details of bank draft purchased for more than Rs. 50,000.
(4) Details of TDS on job work with photocopies of account of parties and copy of agreement, if any.
(5) Photocopies of bills, vouchers of expenses including job work expenses, commission expenses.
The assessee replied the issues by its letter dated 22-1-2003. Along with the books of account, the vouchers were produced which is noted in the assessment order. The copy of all the bank accounts were produced. In respect of job work charges, the photocopy of form No. 26C being annual return for TDS on contract payments was filed. This form contained the details of all the job work charges paid including the name and address of the persons, the amount paid, the permanent account number of such payee etc. This form was also filed earlier with the TDS section on 30-6-2000. The vouchers for job work were also produced. The wages register was also produced. The details of commission paid to Sanjay R. Shah was filed. The document filed along with return of income also shows debit note from Sanjay R. Shah, HUF for commission payment. Thus, this evidence regarding payment of commission was not only filed during filing return but also during assessment proceedings. The genuineness of the commission paid was also demonstrated.
Another letter by the assessing officer was issued on 27-1-2003 asking for confirmation from Sanjay R. Shah to whom commission was paid and the confirmation from whom the assessee firm has received loans on interest along with the source of deposit. The assessee filed the reply dated 27-2-2003 to the complete satisfaction to the queries raised by letter dated 27-1-2003.
The copy of account of Shri Sanjay Shah for payment of commission, the authority letter from appellant to GSRTC for dealing with Sanjay R. Shah, the debit note raised by Sanjay R. Shah was once again filed.
The confirmation of accounts from Meenakshi Jain alongwith her bank pass book and acknowledgement of her return and balance sheet showing the advance were filed. In the confirmation, her permanent account number is also mentioned. The amount is received by way of account payee cheques. Alongwith the confirmation of Manoj Jain his permanent account number is mentioned. The copy of his pass book and copy of his return, statement of income and balance sheet were also filed. In the case of Smt. Kailash Kumari, the confirmation letter was filed alongwith permanent account number, copy of return etc. In the case of Smt. Sapna Khurana confirmation letter, her permanent account number and her latest assessment order alongwith pass book were filed.
As regards the purchase of material, complete quantitative details is filed along with tax audit report. The books of account were produced with purchase vouchers. The gross profit declared is found to be comparable and acceptable.
There is no material to hold that the assessment is done without any enquiry. The allegation by the Commissioner is that proper, requisite and desired enquiries are not made. What is proper, requisite and desired enquiries should be decided by the assessing officer and the order can be erroneous provided enquiry is not made at all. If the assessing officer, after making enquiries in this regard, is satisfied about the veracity of claim and genuineness of transactions and if no adverse inference is drawn, it cannot be said that the assessment order is erroneous. He relied upon the following observation of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 831 extracted herein:
A bare reading of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, makes it clear that the pre-requisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the Income Tax Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely (i) the order of assessing officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If one of them is absent-if the order of the Income Tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the revenue-recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of the Act. The provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the assessing officer, it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without a plying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue" is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The scheme of the Act is to levy and collect tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this task is entrusted to the revenue. If due to an erroneous order of the Income Tax Officer, the revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue" has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the assessing officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the assessing officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, if cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law."
He further submitted that the assessment done after proper enquiry cannot be set aside in its, entirety without pointing out any error in the same. The assessment cannot be a subject matter of roving and fishing enquiry without pinpointing any specific error in the order said to be revised. He also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Agra Bench in the case of Rishi Kumar Gupta v. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Agra-Trib) 645 wherein at para 16 it was held thus:
In the instant case we have seen that it is not a case of no enquiry, but a case, of proper enquiry, which is a matter of subjectivity. It is not the Commissioner to decide that upto what extent enquiry is to be made, but in fact, it is the assessing officer to decide the matter and to draw inferences. Once the, assessing officer has drawn inference after making enquiry, the Commissioner does not have any jurisdiction under Section 263 to cancel the assessment order. Endless enquiry is not possible and the enquiry has to be closed at some stage. It is for the assessing officer to decide to end the enquiry the Commissioner cannot transgress the jurisdiction under Section 263 by mentioning that no proper enquiry was made. Hence, we cancel the order passed by Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act."
5. Learned Commissioner DR Smt. Deepali Bahadur entirely relied upon the order of revision. She submitted that Commissioner never mentioned that the details were not filed. All that is found erroneous is because the enquiries were not conducted fully and such enquiries were not carried to its logical conclusion.
In respect of job work charges, the persons to whom such job work charges were paid were never examined. Even before the Commissioner, the assessee has shown its inability to produce all the job workers. The vouchers for job charges show identical pattern which are typed at the office of assessee itself. These vouchers do not contain the address of such workers.
Regarding the commission paid, enquiry was neither made directly with Sanjay R. Shah or he was examined.
Similarly, for cash credits, the assessing officer has not carried the enquiry by enquiring it into the source of such persons. She also relied upon decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that an incorrect assumption of fact or "an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous". In the same category falls order passed without application of mind. She also relied upon the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in CWT v. N. T. Rama Rao for the proposition that an order is said to be erroneous not only when erroneous in point of law but erroneous in any sense/causes prejudice to the interest of revenue. She also relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in Duggal & Co. v. CIT for the proposition that it is incumbent upon the assessing officer to further investigate the facts stated in the return when the circumstances would make such enquiry prudent and the word "erroneous" in Section 263 includes the failure to make such an enquiry. She also relied upon the following decisions wherein it was held that when the assessing officer fails to consider relevant aspect of a particular point at issue, the order would be erroneous:
(1) Gee Vee Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner .
(2) Tarajan Tea Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT .
(3) Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT .
6. In reply, learned Counsel for assessee Dr. Rakesh Gupta, submitted that as per the letter of enquiry dated 13-12-2002, the details of job work charges and commission were called for and the same were filed on 22-1-2003. If the contention of Commissioner is that the purpose for which return is selected for scrutiny are not examined and hence, the order is erroneous, in the same breath it can be found that the case was not selected for scrutiny in relation to depreciation on car, purchase of material and the commission paid. In respect of such issues not being the backbone of scrutiny proceedings, the assessing officer has scrutinized such details and was found satisfied with the same. The case laws relied upon by Commissioner as well as by learned DR relates to cases of no enquiry and not with reference to drawing an inference from such enquiry. If after considering the details, no adverse inference is drawn, it cannot be said that the order is without applying or without making any enquiry. The order cannot be considered as erroneous merely because no additions/disallowances are made. He accordingly pleaded that the order of Commissioner be set aside as the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
7. We have carefully considered the relevant facts, arguments advanced and the case laws cited. We have also perused the paper book to which our attention was drawn during the course of hearing. The only grievance of the appellant is that the Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the assessment order made after making proper enquiries and to hold that the order of assessing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
7.1 As per the definition in the Blacks Dictionary, Sixth Edition, the expression "erroneous" means involving error, deviation from the law. The "erroneous assessment" is defined as an assessment that deviates from the law and is, therefore, invalid and is a defect that is jurisdictional in its nature. "Erroneous judgment" is defined as one rendered according to the course and practice of court but contrary to law, by the mistaken view of law or by the erroneous application of legal principles. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) held that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of revenue" in its ordinary meaning will include an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law". It also held that "the order of assessing officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue when the assessing officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it had resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and the assessing officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree".
7.2 From the aforesaid definition and the ratio laid down by Honble Supreme Court, it can be held that an order cannot be termed as "erroneous" unless it is not in accordance with law. If an assessing officer is acting in accordance with law, the same cannot be branded as erroneous if in the opinion of Commissioner, the order should have been more elaborate or that further proper enquiry should have been made. Error should be an error in approach, error in computation, error in applying the relevant provisions of law or in facts or error in selecting a principle which would not govern the factual situation. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Piari Devi Sarogi (67 ITR 184) upheld the order of revision of assessment order where it was found that the assessing officer has made the assessment in undue haste without any evidence or enquiry which was necessary in the facts of the case. Similar view has been taken in the case of Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT . Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Duggal & Co. (supra) referring to its earlier decision in Gee Vee Enterprises case (supra) held that "an assessing officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He again remained passive in the face of return which is apparent in order but calls for further enquiry and that it is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an enquiry". It was further held, "it is incumbent upon the assessing officer to further investigate the facts stated in the return when circumstances would make such an enquiry prudent. Failure to make such an enquiry still amount to an order being erroneous within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act.
7.3 In the present facts, it is seen that though the assessment order is a short one, the record shows that the assessing officer has conducted enquiry in respect of almost all items which called for such enquiry. The first letter was issued on 13-1.2-2002 requiring the assessee to furnish the details in respect of cash credits, details of opening and closing stock quantity-wise, quality-wise and value-wise, details of bank drafts purchased for more than Rs. 50,000, details of TDS on job work and various major expenses including job work, commission etc. along with bills/vouchers where the payment is exceeding Rs. 500. The assessee has filed the details as per its letter dated 22-1-2003. Further enquiries were made by letter dated 27-1-2003, inter alia, asking for details in relation to commission payment, cash credit in respect of three persons. The assessment order records a finding that the books of account were produced and test checked. As per the letter of assessee, it is clear that the vouchers in regard to the purchases and expenses were produced and verified. The assessing officer after verification of such details, was satisfied and hence, no addition/disallowances have been made. Though such verification is not reflected in the assessment order, the record and even the order of Commissioner leads to the conclusion that the details were filed and the same were examined. Thus, it is not a case that the assessing officer has failed to make the enquiries which are called for in the circumstances.
The job work charges are fully vouched mentioning the details regarding the chassis number in respect of which the body was built by the appellant. The vouchers coupled with the annual return of TDS in respect of such job work charges contains the details like the name, the complete address etc. There is nothing on record to doubt the genuineness of such payments when majority of such payments was made by account payee cheques. The ledger account of each such party were also filed which shows that except the small-amounts, majority of the payments are made by account payee cheques. The grievance of Commissioner is that confirmation letters from these parties have not been obtained. Once the details are available on record and it is found that such work is usually done by the job workers, the assessing officer cannot merely go by the statement of third parties. The details filed do not raise any suspicion that such payments are either excessive or unreasonable. In the circumstances, not making an enquiry with the job workers cannot render the order as erroneous.
In the case of commission payment, the assessee, since it filed returned, furnished the debit note raised by Sanjay R. Shah in this regard. Thereafter, the assessee filed the address of the person along with his permanent account number etc. The confirmatory letter from GSRTC in respect of which the work was done was also filed. As a matter of fact, it has been found that the assessee has carried out work of body building on the chassis supplied by GSRTC. The assessee is stationed at Rohtak and the coordination has to be done at Ahmedabad in Gujarat which is at a far away place. Thus, there is no reason to doubt that the services were not required or that the services were not rendered. In the circumstances, with the details filed, if the assessing officer is satisfied, the order cannot be branded as erroneous.
As regards non-disallowance of depreciation on motor car when the motor car expenses itself were disallowed, we find that the issue regarding disallowance of motor car expenses was before the Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak. It is the contention of the Commissioner in the revision order that the expenses should have been disallowed in terms of Section 38 of the Act. When Commissioner (Appeals) considered the issue, he was of the opinion that the personal use by the partners cannot be ruled out and hence, 1/5th of such expenditure on motor car is disallowable. In the same breath, learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered the disallowance of depreciation on motor car. Though the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to do so, the expenses on running and maintenance of motor car including depreciation thereon can be said to have merged into the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, the issue which is before Commissioner (Appeals) cannot form part of revisional proceedings under Section 263 of the Act.
As regards loan from Sapna Khurana, Manoj Jain and Meenakshi Jain, we find that the assessee has supplied all the relevant details like confirmation, letter, permanent account number and the mode of receipt, i.e., by cheque along with copy of pass book etc. It is the contention of Commissioner that there is some cash deposit prior to issue of cheque. Such thing should have been enquired into. It is settled law that the assessee is not supposed to prove the source of the source or the origin of the origin. Thus, the assessing officer cannot make any further addition under Section 68 of the Act once the creditor has confirmed the transaction along with his permanent account number and the copy of relevant material is produced which establishes the identity of the creditor, the genuineness and the creditworthiness. Thus, the assessing officers action in accepting the cash credit as genuine cannot be branded as erroneous order.
In respect of purchase of aluminium of Rs. 127 lacs, the assessing officer has obtained the copies of account of two parties showing purchase of aluminium of Rs. 90 lacs. Thus, almost 70% of purchases has been examined and is confirmed. Even in respect of total purchases, the assessee has filed complete quantitative details and consumption thereon. The assessee has also filed the details regarding draft purchase exceeding Rs. 50,000. The majority of the draft are issued to the parties from whom the aluminium has been purchased. Thus, it is not a case of no enquiry. The grievance of Commissioner is that the confirmation of the parties should have been obtained or that no comparison has been made with the consumption for earlier year. The assessing officer is expected to make further enquiries provided he has reason to believe that such details are either incorrect or is insufficient. The payment do not become genuine only when the same is confirmed by counter party. Thus, it cannot be said that the assessing officer has failed to do what he was expected to do.
7.4 The general observation of the Commissioner is that there is failure to make proper, requisite and desired enquiries. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Jain Bros. v. Union of India observed that one has to proceed with the presumption that officers involved in making the assessment acted in a bona fide manner. What is proper, requisite and desired enquiries in relation to various matter has to be left to the best discretion of the assessing officer. What may be proper requisite and desired in the opinion of the assessing officer may not be so in the opinion of CIT. However, such a situation does not give the power to the Commissioner to set aside an order in revisional proceedings. It is to be noted that the Commissioner has not come to a conclusion that the case is of "no enquiry" or has found that there is any error either in appreciation of facts or on application of law. The case of Commissioner would have been justified had it been a case of no enquiry or merely accepting the statement without any enquiry. If an assessing officer acting in accordance with law make certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous simply because the order should have been more elaborate. Section 263 does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the assessing officer unless the order sought to be revised is held to be erroneous. In the present case, the Commissioner has not pointed out any error much less an error prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The entire assessment has been set aside with a direction to make fresh assessment in accordance with law. However, the Commissioner has not found that the assessment made is not in accordance with law. It is settled law that an assessment has to attain a finality and unless the same falls within the power either under Section 147 or 263, the assessment as made by the assessing officer is to be treated as final. The power under Section 263 can be invoked only when either an error in factual appreciation or an error of law has been demonstrated. To make a roving and endless enquiry is not the spirit of Section 263, as in such cases, re-assessment/revision will not come to an end so long as there is no dearth in intellectual opinion. It is also settled law that in an assessment, Commissioner cannot direct the assessing officer to adopt a view with which he do not agree unless the view adopted by the assessing officer is found to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Garbirel India Ltd. held thus:
That the Income Tax Officer in this case had made enquiries in regard to the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. The assessee had given a detailed explanation in that regard by a letter in writing. All these were Part of the record of the case. Evidently, the claim was allowed by the Income Tax Officer on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. This decision of the of Income Tax Officer could not be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. Moreover, in the instant case, the Commissioner himself, even after initiating proceedings for revision and hearing the assessee, could not say that the allowance of the claim of the assessee was erroneous and that the expenditure was not revenue expenditure but an expenditure of capital nature. He simply asked the Income Tax Officer to re-examine the matter. That matter was not permissible. The Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263."
On the basis of our above discussion as well as the law laid down by various courts, in the instant case, we find that the assessing officer has made reasonable, detailed enquiries and after processing the material utilized the same for completion of the assessment. Thus, the observation of Commissioner that the assessment order is passed without proper consideration of facts and without making proper, requisite and desired enquiries is untenable so as to conclude that the order of assessing officer was erroneous. We accordingly find that the order of assessing officer is not erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order of Commissioner is accordingly set aside.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.