JUDGMENT
K.J. Shetty, C.J.
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, Bench “B”, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:
“Whether there was material on record in support of the Tribunal’s finding that the Commissioner had not given his reasons for his satisfaction that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue? ”
2. The assessee, M/s. Kashi Nath & Co., is a partnership firm. The firm was doing sarafa and pawning business. For the assessment year 1975-76, the Income-tax Officer determined its income at Rs. 77,599, There was no appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of his power under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act set aside the assessment order and directed the . Income-tax Officer to redo the assessment. But the appeal against the said order of the Commissioner has been allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has observed that the Commissioner has not given his reasons for his conclusion that the order of assessment was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In our opinion, the conclusion of the Tribunal is unassailable.
3. We may first refer to the order of the Commissioner. The preamble of the order states that the assessment order passed was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue inasmuch as the Income-tax Officer while completing the assessment for 1975-76 did not make detailed enquiries in respect of various cash credits appearing in the names of different ladies. He further did not obtain necessary details about the interest income from pawning.
4. Para. 2 of the order refers to the notice issued by the Commissioner to the assessee and also the reply filed thereto. Para. 3 refers to the conclusion of the Commissioner’s order and it reads :
“After considering the reply of the assessee, I am satisfied that the Income-tax Officer had framed the assessment without examining the
details of the deposits appearing in various names. The assessee’s argument that the provisions of Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are not applicable is not correct. The order passed by the Income-tax Officer on July 22, 1975, for the assessment year 1975-76 is, therefore, set aside for being framed afresh according to law and after careful consideration of abovenoted matters.
Dated : 25-3-1977 Sd./- S. K. Lall, Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow. "
5. It will be seen from the above order that the Commissioner did not examine the various cash credits said to be appearing in the names of different ladies which were said to have escaped the attention of the Income-tax Officer. He only complained of the order of the Income-tax Officer for not examining the details of the credits appearing in various names. What those details required to be examined were have not been set out. There is thus absolutely no reason in support of the conclusion of the Commissioner that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
6. The power of the Commissioner under Section 263 is quasi-judicial in character. He must give reasons in support of his conclusion that the assessment order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If he does not give reasons, the order would be vitiated. This was the view taken by this court in the case of J.P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 326 (All) and CIT v.
Sunder Lal [1974] 96 ITR 310 (All).
7. In the instant case, since the Commissioner has not applied his mind to the relevant material on record and has not given reasons for his conclusions that the assessment order was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the Tribunal was justified in reversing that order.
8. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.