Goldmohur Design And Apparel Park Ltd., ... vs Pr. Comm. Of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai on 31 July, 2020
(i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); (ii)
ITA No.3971/Mum/2017 A.Y 2012-13 20
Goldmohar Desine and Apparel Park Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-7
Grasim Industry Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom); (iii) CIT Vs. LIC
Housing Finance Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 458 (Bom); (iv) CIT Vs. Gera
Development (P) Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 691 (Bom); and (v) CIT Vs. Kiran
Hirji Shah (2015) 56 Taxman.com 360 (Bom). On the basis of his
aforesaid contentions, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that if the A.O while
framing the assessment had adopted one of the possible view in law, the
Pr. CIT was divested of invoking his revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 263
of the Act. Apart from that, it has been the claim of the ld. A.R before us,
that in case where the A.O had duly conducted an enquiry in respect of an
issue, the revisional authority would thereafter not be vested with the
jurisdiction for directing a fuller inquiry to find out if the view so taken is
erroneous. In other words, it was the claim of the ld. A.R, that once the
A.O was satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee, it was not
open to the CIT in exercise of his revisional powers to direct that a further
inquiry be carried out. In sum and substance, as averred by the ld. A.R,
though lack of enquiry would justify invoking of revisional jurisdiction by
the CIT, but then, a case of inadequate inquiry cannot form the basis for
assumption of jurisdiction under Sec. 263 of the Act. In support of his
aforesaid contention the ld. A.R had relied on a host of judicial
pronouncements. Also, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that merely because
in the body of the assessment order there was an absence of an elaborate
discussion by the A.O as regards the entitlement of the assessee towards
claim of depreciation on the leasehold rights, the same would however
not justify assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT under Sec. 263 of the
Act. Elaborating on his aforesaid contention, it was averred by the ld. A.R,
that the order passed by the A.O cannot be held to be erroneous simply
because he had not made an elaborate discussion in respect of an issue in
his assessment order.