9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1153 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - errors in the orders passed by the A.O. under section 143(3) read with section 153A for all the five years - agricultural income was accepted by the A.O. without making necessary enquiries - Held that - It is observed that in the common questionnaire issued by the A.O. on 30th July, 2012 for all the five years under consideration, the assessee vide point No.43 was required by the A.O. to furnish details of agricultural income along with the documentary proof of ownership of the land cultivated, agriculture produce sold and agricultural inputs used. In reply filed vide letter dated 24.09.2012 the assessee not only furnished the year-wise details of net agricultural income earned during all the five years under consideration but also pointed out that the said agricultural income was earned by him by cultivating and selling Ground Nuts, Bengal-grams, Sunflower Seeds and Cotton Kappas. Copies of the relevant pass books were also filed by the assessee as proof of agricultural lands owned by him. This enquiry made by the A.O. and reply given by the assessee thereto clearly show that the claim of the assessee for agricultural income as declared in the returns of income for all the five years under consideration was examined by the A.O. after making specific enquiries and after having satisfied himself, the claim of the assessee was allowed by him. In our opinion, there was thus no error in the orders passed by the A.O. under section 143(3) read with section 153A and even if the Ld. CIT was of the opinion that the enquiries made by the A.O. on this issue were not sufficient, the same could not be a ground for revision under section 263 as held in the case of Spectra Shares & Scrips Pvt Ltd. vs. CIT (2013 (6) TMI 173 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT ). - Decided in favour of assessee. Non initiating penalty proceedings under section 271D/271E for the violation of the provisions of section 269SS and 269T - Held that - As it is observed that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M. Dhara & Broters vs. CIT-XVI, Kolkata (2015 (8) TMI 693 - ITAT KOLKATA) wherein it was held by the Tribunal by following the decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd., (1989 (7) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA High Court) that the failure of the A.O. to initiate proceedings under section 271D for violation of section 269SS could not be considered as an error calling for revision under section 263. We therefore, find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there were no errors in the orders passed by the A.O. under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act for all the five years under consideration which were prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue calling for revision by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 263. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Revision of assessments made by the A.O. under section 143(3) read with section 153A for A.Ys. 2007-2008 to 2011-2012. 2. Alleged errors in the assessments: agricultural income and loans in cash. Analysis: Issue 1: Revision of Assessments The appeals were filed against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Hyderabad, revising the assessments made by the A.O. under section 143(3) read with section 153A for the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2011-2012. The Ld. CIT found mistakes in the assessments related to agricultural income and loans in cash. Issue 2: Alleged Errors in Assessments The Ld. CIT observed discrepancies in the assessments, including the absence of agricultural lands in the balance sheet but the declaration of agricultural income. Additionally, loans raised or repaid in cash were noted, violating provisions attracting penalties under the IT Act. The Ld. CIT issued notices under section 263, requiring the assessee to justify the assessments. The assessee explained the agricultural income as derived from lands not reflected in the balance sheet and loans taken for business needs. Explanation by the Assessee The assessee clarified that the agricultural lands were inherited and not reflected in the balance sheet, with crops like cotton and Bengal-gram grown. The loans were taken for business exigencies, supported by entries in books. The Ld. CIT found the explanation unsatisfactory and set aside the A.O.'s orders, directing a reevaluation. Arguments and Decision The counsel for the assessee argued that the A.O. had examined the agricultural income issue adequately during assessment proceedings. The second issue regarding loans in cash was supported by a Tribunal decision, stating penalties under section 271D were not grounds for revision under section 263. The Revenue contended that the A.O.'s lack of proper inquiries made the assessments erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. Judgment After considering submissions, the Tribunal found no errors in the A.O.'s orders for the years under consideration. The A.O. had adequately examined the agricultural income and loans issues, rendering the Ld. CIT's revision under section 263 unwarranted. The Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT's order, reinstating the A.O.'s assessments. Consequently, the appeals of the assessee were allowed. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the assessment revision and the arguments presented by the parties involved.
|
