9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1112 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - unaccounted cash in saving bank account - no enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer for source of the total deposits appearing in the bank account as held by CIT(A) considered as erroneous to the interest of the Revenue - Held that - In the present case, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings issued a questionnaire and asked the assessee to furnish copy of bank account which was furnished and examined by the Assessing Officer thoroughly. The Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee relating to the deposits and withdrawals in the bank account and no addition was made. Assessing Officer framed the assessment in accordance with law after making deep enquiry on all the issues on which the Ld. CIT presumed that proper enquiry was not made. Therefore, only on this basis that the order should be written more elaborately it cannot be said that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We therefore, are of the view that the Ld. CIT was not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to make further investigations afresh when the Assessing Officer had already applied his mind and thoroughly examined the issues which were directed to be reexamined by the Ld. CIT. Therefore, by considering the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the view that the assessment order dated 22/07/2011 passed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed by the CIT-I, Jodhpur under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the CIT-I, Jodhpur erred in setting aside the assessment order without finding it erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. Jurisdictional overreach by CIT-I, Jodhpur in giving directions not subject to notice under section 263. 4. Specific errors cited by CIT-I, Jodhpur in the assessment order regarding verification of deposits, application of section 68, and other financial transactions. 5. Whether the assessment order was passed after thorough examination by the Assessing Officer (AO). 6. Additional grounds raised by the petitioner. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the Order under Section 263 The assessee contested the validity of the CIT-I, Jodhpur's order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that it was "bad in law, bad in facts and perverse." The Tribunal noted that the CIT-I invoked section 263, considering the assessment order passed by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Issue 2: Erroneous and Prejudicial to Revenue The CIT-I, Jodhpur set aside the assessment order on the grounds that the AO did not make proper inquiries regarding the deposits and transactions in the assessee's bank account. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed issued a detailed questionnaire and examined the documents provided by the assessee, including bank statements and confirmations of accounts. Issue 3: Jurisdictional Overreach The assessee argued that CIT-I exceeded his jurisdiction by giving directions on matters not subject to the notice under section 263. The Tribunal agreed, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Contimeters Electricals P. Ltd., which followed the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Toyo Engg. India Ltd. Issue 4: Specific Errors Cited by CIT-I The CIT-I pointed out several specific errors, including: - Verification of deposits totaling Rs. 50,70,486, including cash deposits of Rs. 7,39,000. - Source of opening cash balance of Rs. 9,85,000. - Application of section 68 for unexplained cash credits. - Application of section 2(22)(e) regarding loans and advances from a private limited company. - Nature of utilization of amounts paid to certain individuals and entities. The Tribunal found that the AO had examined these issues during the assessment proceedings and was satisfied with the explanations provided by the assessee. Issue 5: Thorough Examination by AO The Tribunal observed that the AO had issued a detailed questionnaire and examined the relevant documents, including bank statements and confirmations of accounts. The AO was satisfied with the explanations provided by the assessee and did not find any discrepancies. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had made a plausible view after necessary inquiries, and the CIT-I's dissatisfaction was not a valid basis for revision under section 263. Issue 6: Additional Grounds The assessee sought permission to raise additional or alternative grounds during the hearing. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the CIT-I and restoring the assessment order passed by the AO. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order dated 22/07/2011 passed by the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The CIT-I, Jodhpur was not justified in directing the AO to make further investigations afresh when the AO had already examined the issues thoroughly. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the assessment order was restored. The Tribunal emphasized that mere dissatisfaction of the CIT-I over the manner of assessment cannot be a basis for revision under section 263.
|
