2014 (1) TMI 1746 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Held that - All the documents which were found during the search were not examined by Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. This clearly shows that Ld. Commissioner came to the conclusion that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue Assessing Officer is of the view that issue regarding section 40A(3) i.e. issue of cash payment and certain investments could not be examined because of the non-cooperation of the assessee. These are two different issues and cannot be linked. No doubt, the Assessing Officer has no power to review his own order but as discussed earlier he had definitely power to put up a proposal for revision and this position was admitted even by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Therefore, we find no force in these submissions. Assessing Officer has ultimately accepted the surrendered amount meaning thereby by that Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible view and, therefore, order cannot be called erroneous. The careful perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that Assessing Officer has not examined the various documents found during the search and has simply assessed the income at ₹ 8.5 crores which was surrendered amount. The Assessing Officer should have examined all the documents particularly because the assessee has not filed the return for surrendered amount of ₹ 8.5 crores. In fact, the assessee had returned only income of ₹ 3.37 crores. Therefore, Assessing Officer should have been more then careful and should have examined all the documents found during the search regarding purchase of properties and then determine income which has not been done. In any case, mere acceptance of the surrendered income without inquiry would make the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue None of the items pertain to surrendered income and, therefore, it cannot be said that a sum of ₹ 78,30,000/- was surrendered in the hands of Shri Suresh Khanna. The Ld. counsel was confronted with this variation and specific question was posed to him as to how he justified the figure of ₹ 78,30,000/- shown as surrendered income. He gave evasive reply and submitted that this would be part of income of six years, however, no document is available in this regard. Similar is the situation with Shri Rupinderdeep Singh and Shri Deepak Chauhan. As far as the case of Shri Harinder Singh is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed copy of the assessment order in case of Shri Harinder Singh vide letter dated 6.11.2013. The assessment order clearly shows that assessee had declared income from business. In this case the sum of ₹ 2,98,39,000/- has been added by way of addition and same did not form part of the returned income. Therefore, this is wrong to say that assessee has offered the surrendered income in various hands. Assessing Officer has not made proper enquiries and therefore, assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue which has been correctly revised by the Ld. Commissioner by passing an order u/s 263. - Decided against assessee

Issues Involved:

1. Justification of CIT's invocation of power under Section 263 based on AO's letter.
2. Validity of CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 when assessment was completed under Section 153A/C read with Section 143(3).
3. Examination of whether CIT was justified in reviewing the assessment for further verification under Section 263.
4. Legitimacy of CIT's action under Section 263 regarding the examination of seized/impounded documents for investment and Section 40A(3) violations.
5. Consideration of additional grounds raised by the assessee regarding the CIT's jurisdiction under Section 263.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of CIT's Invocation of Power Under Section 263:

The primary issue is whether the CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 based solely on the AO's letter. The Tribunal noted that there is no statutory bar against an AO bringing materials to the CIT's notice for initiating revision proceedings. However, the CIT must apply his mind to the material and satisfy himself that it is a case warranting the exercise of revisional power. The Tribunal found that the CIT had examined the assessment records and seized materials before issuing the show cause notice, thus fulfilling the requirement of applying his mind.

2. Validity of CIT's Assumption of Jurisdiction Under Section 263:

The Tribunal examined whether the CIT was justified in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263, especially when the assessment was completed under Section 153A/C read with Section 143(3). It was noted that the CIT had issued a show cause notice after examining the records and seized materials. The Tribunal found that the CIT had the authority to assume jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO's assessment was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to a lack of proper inquiry.

3. Examination of Whether CIT Was Justified in Reviewing the Assessment for Further Verification:

The Tribunal considered whether the CIT was justified in reviewing the assessment under the guise of further verification. It was found that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries into the seized documents and the transactions recorded therein. The CIT's action to review the assessment was deemed justified as the AO's failure to make necessary inquiries rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

4. Legitimacy of CIT's Action Under Section 263 Regarding Examination of Seized/Impounded Documents:

The Tribunal evaluated the CIT's action under Section 263 concerning the examination of seized/impounded documents for investment and Section 40A(3) violations. It was found that the AO had not adequately examined the documents from the perspective of investment and compliance with Section 40A(3). The CIT's direction to reassess the documents and conduct proper inquiries was upheld as legitimate, given the AO's oversight.

5. Consideration of Additional Grounds Raised by the Assessee:

The Tribunal addressed the additional grounds raised by the assessee, which questioned the CIT's jurisdiction under Section 263 without firm and final findings. The Tribunal found that the additional ground did not project a separate dispute but was part of the argument against sustaining the order passed under Section 263. Thus, it was not admitted for separate adjudication but considered as part of the overall argument.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the CIT's revisionary order under Section 263, finding that the AO's assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to a lack of proper inquiry into the seized documents and transactions. The appeals were dismissed, and the CIT's directions for a fresh assessment were deemed justified.

← Previous Next →