2014 (12) TMI 1301 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - huge claims of expenditure allowed despite castigating the assessee and huge revaluation amounts have been allowed as exempt u/s 10(2A) in the hands of the firm or partners which in the event of noncooperation ought to have been disallowed - Held that - The assessment in question was consequent to a search; assesses non cooperation has been adversely viewed by AO and at the end of the day search assessment was framed without co operation of the assessee. Assessment order refers to various frequent reconstitution of the firm and transfer of land rights therein; instances of revaluation of land; claim of their exemption from the taxation are not addressed in the ex parte search assessment order. The issues raised by ld. CIT for non inquiry are found to validly raised and ought to have been inquired by AO more particularly when assessee was non cooperative. For this purpose necessary field inquiries were necessary besides cross verification of record of other search entities. This exercise was required from the AO to have been conducted as a sensible quasi judicial officer. Thus all the deficiencies referred to by ld CIT make the impugned assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The reliance on the judgments of Smt. Taradevi Agrawal 1972 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court and Smt. Renu Gupta 2007 (5) TMI 188 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT is well placed by ld CIT. We uphold the order passed u/s 263. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 setting aside the AO's order u/s 153C/143(3)/144 for de-novo assessment.
2. Directing the AO to ensure proper verification of the scheme launched by the firm, genuineness of booking advances, expenses incurred on the project, and taxability of the revaluation amount.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Order Passed by CIT u/s 263:
The assessee challenged the CIT's order u/s 263, which set aside the AO's order u/s 153C/143(3)/144 for making a de-novo assessment. The assessee contended that the AO had already examined the relevant issues while framing the assessment, and the order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The CIT, however, found that crucial issues material to a proper assessment were not considered, and significant claims of expenditure were allowed despite the assessee's non-cooperation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, noting that the assessment in question was consequent to a search, and the assessee's non-cooperation had been adversely viewed by the AO. The deficiencies referred to by the CIT made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

2. Directing the AO to Ensure Proper Verification:
The CIT directed the AO to ensure proper verification of the scheme launched by the firm, genuineness of booking advances, expenses incurred on the project, and taxability of the revaluation amount. The assessee argued that these issues had already been examined by the AO, who had disallowed the project expenses and revaluation expenses, taking the value of the closing stock at the actual cost of land. The CIT, however, found that the AO had not conducted necessary inquiries and cross-verification, especially given the assessee's non-cooperation. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT, noting that the AO had not issued any summons to the partners or consulted the records of other searched entities of the group. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's direction for a de-novo assessment, emphasizing the need for proper inquiries and verification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT's order u/s 263. The Tribunal found that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to the lack of proper inquiry and verification, especially in light of the assessee's non-cooperation. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the issues raised by the CIT, including the genuineness of booking advances, project expenses, and the taxability of the revaluation amount.