Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

332 ITR 167. It was submitted that it is not a case where the AO has not enquired and framed the assessment, but, the AO has enquired and accepted assessee's contention and formed opinion and, therefore, CIT is not empowered to revise the assessment order. Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 234 ITR 83 (SC) to submit that CIT cannot substitute his opinion on an issue in the proceedings u/s 25 of the Act. Since the provisions of section 25 WT Act are in paripassu to the provisions of section 263 of IT Act, therefore, these principles will equally apply to the facts of the case. The ld. counsel further on merits submitted that the property is 'commercial property' and incomes of which were offered and accepted as business and is revenue yielding asset. Consequently, the CIT cannot direct levy of wealth tax on the building, both on facts as well as on law and as the action of CIT cannot be justified, requested for setting aside the order.